Council logo
  • Home
  •   
Error loading MacroEngine script (file: GroupsMenu.cshtml)

Home

The Green Book

posted May 24, 2013

The latest version of the Council's energy conservation Green Book, Nutrak94, describes Northwest utility accomplishments in acquiring conservation as an electricity resource from 1978 through 1994. In 1994, the region as a whole and most Northwest utilities met or exceeded their conservation targets. On behalf of the Council, I want to commend the region's utilities and conservation industry for a job well done. We also want to thank the Nutrak reporting utilities for their perseverance in providing their information to the regional conservation tracking effort.

The Council recognizes that economic forces in the electricity marketplace are making conservation more difficult to pursue as a utility resource investment. At the same time, the forces of a more competitive utility environment are driving retail utilities toward an active marketing effort to serve and retain their customers -- an effort where conservation services can play a part.

In a recent survey by the Council, the region's utility industry reported that 1995 conservation savings will be about the same as 1994, about 120 average megawatts. Utility conservation plans and other obligations are likely to secure another 70 average megawatts per year in 1996 and 1997 and about 60 average megawatts per year in 1998 and 1999. As would be expected with lower avoided costs, future savings are expected to be only about half the 1994-1995 level. The survey indicates a degree of stability at the local level for utility customers and conservation providers. It also sends a clear message that the future will be different from the past.

One reason future conservation levels will probably be lower than in the past is the fact that our region has so successfully captured the conservation opportunities that were before us. Many measures that were utility-funded in the past have now become standard practice. The Council estimates that in 1996 the region will benefit from about 1,000 average megawatts of energy savings as a direct result of utility-funded conservation achieved since passage of the Northwest Power Act.

It is clear that conservation -- along with many other facets of the utility industry -- will be recast through the coming transition. It is the Council's hope that the wealth of conservation information available to the region through Nutrak will be materially helpful as new approaches to energy efficiency are identified and pursued.

Sincerely, John Etchart

Direct Use of Natural Gas

posted May 24, 2013

Lower natural gas prices, apparently adequate gas supplies and improving reliability and efficiency of combustion turbines have all increased the attractiveness of natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation.  In the Northwest Power Planning Council’s 1991 Northwest Power Plan, both natural gas-fired cogeneration and the use of combustion turbines as a means of backing up the hydropower system in low water years were found to be cost-effective resources.  In conjunction with the hydropower system, combustion turbines would be used only when water conditions limit the supply of nonfirm or so-called secondary hydroelectricity.  With today’s lower natural gas price outlook, natural gas is competitive even as a base-load electricity generation resource, that is, to operate at high capacity factors to meet loads during most conditions.

Compilation of Information on Salmon and Steelhead Total Run Size, Catch and Hydropower Related Losses in the Upper Columbia River Basin, Above Grand Coulee Dam

posted May 24, 2013

This Upper Columbia United Tribes report was scanned May 1, 2008, and made available through the Council's website.

  • Chapter 1 (2.5mb PDF): Introduction, Cover, Table of Contents
  • Chapter 2 (13mb PDF): Indian Fisheries in the Upper Columbia Basin
  • Chapter 3 (3mb PDF): Estimate of Catch and Run Size
  • Chapter 4 (8mb PDF): Factors Contributing to Run Declines
  • Chapter 5 (7mb PDF): Responsibility of Hydropower for Salmon and Steelhead Losses
    (and Bibliography)

Statements of Steering Committee Members Regarding the Final Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System

posted May 22, 2013

Al Alexanderson, Portland General Electric
Rick Applegate, Trout Unlimited
Ken Canon, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities
Jim Curtis, Bonneville Power Administration
Jim Davis, Douglas County Public Utility District
William Drummond, Western Montana Generation and Transmission
Jason Eisdorfer, Citizens Utility Board
Bob Gannon, Montana Power Company
K.C. Golden, Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development
Charles Hedemark, Intermountain Gas Company
Sharon Nelson, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
John Saven, Northwest Requirements Utilities
Rachel Shimshak, Renewable Northwest Project
Brett Wilcox, Northwest Aluminum Company
Gary Zarker, Seattle City Light

Al Alexanderson, Portland General Electric

The Comprehensive Review has provided an opportunity for the Northwest to both meet its environmental obligations and continue to receive the long-term benefits of a reliable power supply. The Review helped forge important agreements about preserving and sharing these benefits in the region.

The governors have helped the region develop a road map for restructuring the Northwest Power industry. We are moving from a closed and largely government-controlled electric industry to one based on competition and driven by customer choice of what to buy and from whom. The road map will help get us there in an equitable way.

Rick Applegate, Trout Unlimited

The Steering Committee's recommendations have now been submitted to the governors. And, some important progress was made. Nonetheless, as my dissent reflects, there is significantly more work to do before consensus on these important power and fish-related issues can be achieved. Without that consensus, it will be difficult if not impossible to implement the Steering Committee?s recommendations on utility restructuring.

The next critical step is to address fish and wildlife concerns -- including the issue whether this proposal improves the ability of the power system to meet its unmet fish and wildlife obligations. That must be done in expeditious deliberations with the tribal state and federal sovereigns and fishery advocates -- not just an individual consultation or two. Ultimately, our real legacy will be the effectiveness of our response to the plight of the Columbia River salmon steelhead and trout.

Ken Canon, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities

The governors' review addressed the competitive changes sweeping the electricity industry in a comprehensive fashion. Industrial electricity customers support this important effort to move the electric industry towards competition at all levels and for all customers.

The review?s recommendations are future oriented, comprehensive and pragmatic. The review is an important step in the transition to a more customer-focused, competitive electric future that will provide all electric users with additional choices.

Jim Curtis, Bonneville Power Administration

BPA's structure may change as an ultimate result of the Regional Review, but its purpose and role within the Columbia River System was reaffirmed. Our mission continues to be to meet our public responsibilities to the people of the Pacific Northwest and the nation's taxpayers through commercially successful power and transmission enterprises. A common desire to preserve the value of the federal hydropower system for the Northwest united all of the participants in the review process.

Jim Davis, Douglas County Public Utility District

The Comprehensive Review's work respects local control of electricity decision-making while taking important steps to prepare the Northwest for increased competition in the electricity industry.

The recommendations balance the need to protect the environment and public purposes with the interests of the US Treasury, the Washington Public Power Supply System bondholders and utility customers, thereby, recognizing that it is not in the best interests of the Northwest to force the utility customers away from BPA by imposing too many onerous requirements.

William Drummond, Western Montana Generation and Transmission

With all the radical changes going on in the electrical energy business, the governors asked us to make recommendations for channeling these changes in the direction that would best serve Northwest residents. While educating people about these changes, our report provides a structure for preserving the benefits of our power system for the region, allows people to make choices and preserves public purpose values.

Our plan is only a beginning; lots of work remains especially at the state level. Also, two of the most important elements are still unresolved. While the future benefits of the Northwest?s hydro system could be huge, right not it would take very little effort to drive the system to insolvency. Second, we have to do something about governance of the Columbia River and the costs of fish and wildlife recovery. Until those issues are resolved, there is little certainty about whether there will be any benefits to share.

Jason Eisdorfer, Citizens Utility Board

The residential and small business customer may have more freas than hopes concenrning the outcome of electricity industry deregulation. The Comprehensive Review is a rational step toward providing these customers protections and benefits in the new deregulated environment. The report links open acces to electricity suppliers with protections for small customers and firm funding for programs important to citizens of the Northwest such as conservation, renewable resources and low-income energy assistance.

The Comprehensive Review made movement toward assuring that the benefits of the federal hydro system stay in the region and that the Bonneville Power Administration meets is debt repayment to the Federal Treasury. The Steering Comittee accomplished its task as charged by the governor. The residents of the Northwest hope that the governors use the momentum of this energy review to move to address the salmon recovery issue, which is the other half of the Northwest energy equation.

Bob Gannon, Montana Power Company

The recommendations represent a hard-won consensus of widely diverse interests. They provide for a transition that enables the region to preserve benefits of the regional energy system for Northwest consumers, enables customers choice through an efficient competitive market, and preserves the region?s leadership position in acquisition of public purpose benefits.

The movement of various parties? positions, from self-interest to regional best interests, demonstrated the significant strength of the steering committee process. The recommendations provide a mechanism to retain benefits for the region?s ratepayers, provide them with choice, and preserve acquisition of public purposes.

K.C. Golden, Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development

These recommendations are a package that can unite the region around a common strategy for managing the Columbia River System and for delivering a brighter energy future. By working together as a region, we were able to seize some of our most promising opportunities and meet some of our toughest challenges.

The review recognized the value of vital investments in energy efficiency, renewable resources, and affordable low-income services, and it provided meaningful guidance on a practical, competitively neutral method for securing them. Our recommendations set forth an appropriate minimum standard for these investments. Now, working together in the four states, we'll need to set up effective mechanisms that allow us to meet those standards in all cases, and exceed them where possible.

As the report acknowledges, we will not have a truly comprehensive package without a parallel set of initiatives on salmon recovery and river governance. The imminence of important changes in the energy system creates a uniquely promising moment to move forward simultaneously toward a biologically sound and regionally supported recovery effort. Without such movement, the consensus we need in order to sustain a solution that meet's the region's long term interests will prove elusive.

Charles Hedemark, Intermountain Gas Company

The recommendations represent a responsible effort by the Northwest to address essential questions about the future of our region?s federal system resources. The review opened energy decision making to a wide spectrum of participants, while preserving the federal energy system?s benefits for the citizens of the region.

One of the most important outcomes of the review is the recommendation that all distribution utilities accommodate open market access for all consumers by mid-1999. The review?s recommendations provide general guidance to the legislative and regulatory authorities who must now pick up the work the governor?s committee has begun. Balancing the advantages of an open and competitive market for electricity with the benefits of the past is what Comprehensive Review was all about.

Sharon Nelson, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

The review's recommendations on changes to the structure of the industry encourage effective and beneficial competition and represent real progress. While retail competition will be a matter of state and local policy-making, the recommendations make a contribution by raising these issues for consideration by local decision makers.

The transition from monopoly service to an electricity industry controlled by the choices of consumers should lead to greater efficiency and both short and long term benefits to all consumers. The steering committee?s recommendations concerning transmission, federal power marketing, public purposes, and retail competition move the transition forward in a responsible and constructive manner.

John Saven, Northwest Requirements Utilities

The review was an initial "test" of whether the region has the fortitude to develop a cohesive plan for the future, or whether we would end up responding to events in a fragmented manner. We clearly passed the test. The review helped the Northwest stake out a future that meets the needs of customers while fulfilling our responsibilities for environmental stewardship.

Rachel Shimshak, Renewable Northwest Project

The review also made significant progress on the development of a secure, competitively neutral funding mechanism to continue conservation, renewable resources, and low income energy service programs, investment as the energy system evolves toward competition. The recommendation represent a good starting point for ensuring a clean and efficient electricity system.

Brett Wilcox, Northwest Aluminum Company

The report recognizes that the electric power industry is being deregulated, that kilowatt hours are basically a commodity, and that a competitive market for electric power as a commodity -- wholesale and retail -- is not only inevitable but beneficial, because it will result in lower prices.

The report is important because Congress will take up legislation to restructure the electric power industry nationwide, just as Congress restructured the telecommunications industry. The Northwest consensus represented by the report is a workable new structure for the Northwest power system, including BPA.

Gary Zarker, Seattle City Light

The report reflects a lot of hard work and tough compromises among the many differing interests in the Pacific Northwest. The report will help ensure the public benefits and the economic and environmental advantages of the Columbia River system are maintained for the people of the Northwest. The review will help protect our quality of life, the cost and reliability of electricity and the influence we have as a region over these issues.

Concurring and dissenting views

posted May 22, 2013

Rick Applegate
West Coast Conservation Director
Trout Unlimited

Member, Steering Committee

The year allotted to the Comprehensive Review Steering Committee has come to an end. Members of the committee and our large following of interested participants and observers have invested thousands of hours in this process. We have struggled with the uncertainties of the changing utility industry and simultaneously with the competing demands of the constituencies that depend on and benefit from the largesse of the Columbia River system. We have understood the importance of our work and have taken it seriously. We have been advised that the Pacific Northwest must develop an effective response to the unsettled utility environment, that national legislation and administrative and industry changes are inevitable. But, most importantly, we have been warned that failure to achieve a broad regional consensus on a regional plan will risk loss of the benefits of the river system. I am dissenting from the Steering Committee report in part because we have not achieved that required regional consensus on fish and power issues.

We have made important progress on some very difficult matters in this review. For example, we have called for market-oriented experiments in energy conservation, renewable resources and low income energy assistance. We have said clearly that no recommendations from this review should be pursued in a manner that alters, impairs or undermines the federal government?s trust obligations and the treaty and other rights of Native Americans. We have called conceptually for a mechanism that should help ensure the stranded costs of the system--the WPPSS debt or others that might arise--can be paid. If it is needed and if it works, that stranded cost mechanism will be very important. We have sketched a path that could allow the region to continue purchasing power at cost and pass those benefits on to regional consumers--if regional consensus and national agreement allow the region to pursue that anomalous course in the increasingly market-driven utility environment. On all these issues, the Steering Committee has made important advances. Nonetheless, I dissent from the committee report and offer the following constructive observations.

First, we must acknowledge there is important and difficult unfinished business that must be attended to before we will have a comprehensive package. The work on a comprehensive regional package is simply not complete at this point. We do not now have anything resembling a consensus about the inextricably connected fish and wildlife issues that must be addressed if an energy industry restructuring package is to move forward smoothly and effectively. I can report that fact with certainty based on my recent conversations with fishery advocates and Native Americans and their organizations; and it is clearly reflected in their comments submitted to our committee.

Without consensus on fish and wildlife matters, we do not have a regional consensus on utility industry restructuring--not even on the sale of power in the region at cost. And, as Senator Hatfield told the Steering Committee, we need to have a consensus if the region intends to continue purchasing power at cost; and we need to have a solid, agreed-upon explanation for that practice.

Key fish-related issues that need to be addressed include:

  1. The question whether the Steering Committee?s proposals improve the ability of the power system to meet its fish and wildlife obligations.
  2. Whether there are changes that could further improve that ability.
  3. Whether the proposals honor or undermine the fish and wildlife obligations of the nation and the region.
  4. Whether the continued purchase of power "at cost" clearly includes the costs of fish and wildlife restoration.
  5. Whether the benefits of the river will be shared fairly if the proposal goes forward.
  6. Whether we can establish a system of power and river governance that will effectively change the operation of the power system in order to restore fish and wildlife populations in the Basin.
  7. The development of specific commitments to actions that will restore the biological health and productivity of the Columbia River--for it is a biological system not simply an economic engine for the region.

I am not going to revisit the initial mistakes of the review process. Suffice it to say that we would be in much better shape today if the power and fish issues--including those listed above--could have been addressed on an equal footing, together and simultaneously. We would be much further along if the state, tribal and federal governments could have reached a prior government-to-government understanding of this process and the issues it needed to address. We should not repeat those mistakes in the future, as they helped produce the lack of regional consensus we clearly have today.

To get at our important unfinished business, the federal, state and tribal governments in this region need to be convened immediately in a serious, sustained, senior-level effort to consider and resolve the key issues listed above--to develop the fish and wildlife package without which there is no comprehensive regional proposal. These issues should not--and will not--be addressed successfully by the states acting alone, through a few consultations, through the announced Northwest Power Planning Council amendment process next year, or by random and ill-advised efforts at Congressional action on pieces of this package. We will need to engage all three sovereigns--federal, state and tribal--in a co-equal decision-making role and with formal dispute resolution, or we will continue to make little progress on fish and wildlife restoration. Unilateral action by the states or the Council will only lead to suspicion, gridlock and failure--and failure to make progress serves no one?s interest.

We can not turn back--or turn away from the tasks ahead. We will now have to play catch-up and we will have to be prepared to modify this regional power proposal to provide greater accommodations for fish and wildlife needs and obligations. For it is clear to virtually all the scientists who have dispassionately assessed the situation that the Columbia River and its salmon runs and other fish and wildlife are in deep trouble. And they can not be restored without major changes, particularly in the hydroelectric system, but not solely there. As I have noted throughout the deliberations of the committee, we are as a region and a nation obligated to protect and restore those fish and wildlife populations. And the power system and its beneficiaries must continue to carry the bulk of that obligation.

I believe that we can find a way to restore fish and wildlife by taking segments of this river back to a more productive riverine state and that we can find a way to accomplish that without undue economic disruption. We must stop treating the restoration opportunity simply as a cost or as an unwelcome burden. Ultimately, we all have much to gain--economically, socially, culturally and in the interest of regional harmony--if we can restore the fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin.

I have argued repeatedly during this review that the region should not try to take any major or controversial action under this report until a working regional consensus has been attained on fish and power issues. I am not naive enough to expect unanimity, but we are far short of the requisite unity that would permit Bonneville, the Council, the Governors, our Congressional delegation or the Clinton Administration to move ahead.

I urge again that interest groups should be very careful about how they take the next steps. I do not raise this as a matter of holding hostage some portions of the committee?s work. My point is that we do not need to start an intraregional war that will substantially weaken our ability to resolve these difficult fish and power issues and will impair the chances that a complete regional package can succeed. Success is not assured and we should not forget that fact.

I am particularly concerned about any moves in Congress or elsewhere to insulate the transmission system from the fish and wildlife or other Bonneville obligations. The private utilities have candidly and openly said they intend to pursue this legislation in Congress. I suspect the drafting has already been done. But even Senator McClure, who supports the full separation of generation and transmission, has warned that this particular piece of legislation should only be pursued if there is regional consensus. There is not a regional consensus on this issue and I hope the private utilities will heed that advice. The key point in dispute is that the utilities believe that fish costs are not an appropriate transmission cost. The fish advocates and tribes believe that transmission contributed to the decline of the salmon and that it must continue, as obligated under current law, to assist in the restoration effort.

The same is true for any further legislative attempts to impose fish and wildlife spending caps and to declare those capped levels of funding sufficient for meeting the power system?s legal obligations to fish and wildlife. We all know the sky is not the limit on fish and wildlife restoration funding, but flexible multiyear budgets developed by the federal, state and tribal governments can handle that problem. The scars from the last battle on the funding cap issue have not healed. They should not be reopened as that would only make it more, not less difficult, to resolve fish and power issues.

Nor should we pursue any quick institutional fixes that would, for example, try to put the states in charge of salmon restoration, particularly since the salmon issue raises so many national and international treaty and related issues. We should not put the states in the dominant role, but should instead pull the federal agencies, state governments and tribes together to address the restoration needs without undermining existing fish and wildlife obligations.

And last, we should stop including lost power system revenues in fish and wildlife restoration costs. Doing so simply charges fish for water we took from the Columbia?s seasonal flows and have used for power generation--as if power generation was the highest and best use of the river. It is not; and this practice is an exercise in political statistics. It overstates the size of the fish and wildlife investment and we should stop doing that.

We face tough issues in all this, but we should remember that this is not new terrain for the region. We had to make the same kind of accommodations for fish and wildlife--with difficulty and too grudgingly in my view--when the Northwest Power Act was being drafted in the late 1970s. We even needed outside help from Congressman Dingell and others to get it done--and we may have to have it again. I am convinced we can reach a resolution and, while we should not be surprised if our struggle to get there is not easy, we must get this important part of the job done.

I have high regard for the integrity, commitment and work ethic of the chairman and members of the committee who have dedicated a large portion of the past year--as I have--to this committee?s work. We accomplished a lot. But much remains to be done and one thing is clear: We will not, and should not, try to write the Northwest chapter of national energy legislation over the determined opposition of fishery advocates, fishery managers and the Northwest?s tribes. We should not try to slide through administrative changes and contracts that would disadvantage fish and wildlife restoration either. All this work should be done in the open and in cooperation with the fishery advocates, tribes and the federal government. It is to that task--so difficult for the Steering Committee to contemplate given its charge and makeup--that we must turn.

As I have said before, we will not be remembered for whether we repay the WPPSS debt; for we will surely repay it. Not for whether we have the cheapest power bills in the nation; for I believe we will have affordable power--at least for the well-off among us. Not for whether we are wasting energy; for we will all do more of that than we should, and we know it.

We will be remembered for whether we advance the public purposes of this river system; whether we stop the decline of the salmon runs; whether we reaffirm and act decisively on our past and still unfulfilled commitments to fish and wildlife restoration; whether we start to keep the promises of the treaties with the tribes and Canada, and fulfill the intent of the Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power Act. In each of these treaties and statutes, and more, we said we would restore the Columbia River fish and wildlife populations so we could enjoy the sustainable benefits that would bring. We need to get on with that job.

I understand the importance of the essential next steps and believe the effort to achieve regional consensus is a very important priority for the region. I will commit even more time and effort to that work. We will all emerge in a stronger position if we successfully link the fish and wildlife obligations with the power system needs and other river uses in the region. We will surely fail if we do not. And the risks of that failure are great for all of us--for the power industry, for other economic users of the river, for the fisheries interests and tribes who depend on the fish and wildlife resources and for all those who are concerned about the basic ecological health of the Columbia River.

I hope we are all prepared to take those next steps and that until these issues are resolved we will not take actions that make progress more difficult. I look forward to working with all of you as that work proceeds.

Because strong fish and wildlife commitments have yet to be made; because the major issues between power, other river uses and fish and wildlife restoration have not been squarely addressed; and, most importantly, because the region is far from consensus on the proper fit between power and fish needs in this report and far short of making the necessary commitments to an effective restoration effort--for all these reasons, I reflect the lack of regional consensus by respectfully dissenting from the recommendations of the steering committee.

Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System

posted May 22, 2013

 

PREAMBLE

The 20 members of the Steering Committee of the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System have worked for 11 months to develop the recommendations contained in this final report. These recommendations represent a consensus of 13 of the 14 voting members of the Steering Committee, a consensus that has been achieved only by compromise and sacrifice on the part of each of the members on the Committee. The 14th voting member acknowledges the significant progress made in many areas but does not believe that sufficient progress was made on issues related to fish and wildlife to constitute a real consensus. His views are presented in Appendix A.

We, the members who voted with the majority, support the report and will work to educate and persuade others, but our support here does not commit all of the groups we represent. These compromises, as difficult as some may find them, are worth making for a simple reason: we have more to lose as a region than we have to gain as disparate interests.

There is still much work to be done. This final report is specific in some areas and general in others. More detail and further refinement will be required to convert these recommendations into the contracts, legislative bills, rules and policies that will implement them.

As regional interests work further on these restructuring initiatives, there are bound to be disagreements and new issues to be resolved within the outlines of these recommendations. However, we believe that the principles outlined here must remain if any regional consensus is to be hoped for. With a consensus position, the Pacific Northwest has the best hope of retaining the benefits of the federal hydropower system and transitioning to a competitive electricity system that will maximize benefits for all consumers in the region. The work embodied in this report will not easily be replicated if the regional consensus is destroyed by unilateral actions of any party.

Finally, the Committee recognizes that electric utility restructuring is evolving rapidly and that efforts in Congress and the states almost certainly will change some of the assumptions underlying this report. Although our recommendations may not reflect the ultimate end-state of this restructuring, we nevertheless believe that it does reflect a workable outcome in itself and a very positive step in this process.

Why Are We Doing This?

The electricity industry in the United States is in the midst of significant restructuring. This restructuring is the product of many factors, including national policy to promote a competitive electricity generation market and state initiatives in California, New York, New England, Wisconsin and elsewhere to open retail electricity markets to competition. This transformation is moving the industry away from the regulated monopoly structure of the past 75 years. Today we are served by individual utilities, many of which control everything from the power plant to the delivery of power to our homes or businesses. In the future, we may have a choice among power suppliers that deliver their product over transmission and distribution systems that are operated independently as common carriers.

There is much to be gained in this transition. Electricity consumers are already benefiting from competition in a number of significant ways. Competition in the natural gas industry has helped lower the cost of electricity produced by gas-fired generating plants. Competition among manufacturers and developers of combustion turbines has contributed to the availability of less expensive, more efficient power plants that can be built relatively quickly. Surplus generating capacity on the West Coast combined with increasing competition among wholesale suppliers has reduced the price utilities must pay for power on the open market. Broad competition in the electricity industry that extends to all consumers could result in lower prices and more choices about the sources, variety and quality of their electrical service.

But, there are risks inherent in the transition to more competitive electricity services. Merely declaring that a market should become competitive will not necessarily achieve the full benefits of competition or ensure that they will be broadly shared. It is entirely possible to have deregulation without true competition. Similarly, the reliability of our power supply could be compromised if care is not taken to ensure that competitive pressures do not override the incentives for reliable operation. How competition is structured is important.

It is also important to recognize the limitations of competition. Competitive markets respond to consumer demands, but they do not necessarily accomplish other important public policy objectives. The Northwest has a long tradition of energy policies that support environmental protection, energy-efficiency, renewable resources, affordable services to rural and low-income consumers, and fish and wildlife restoration. These public policy objectives remain important and relevant. Given the enormous economic and environmental implications of energy, these public policy objectives need to be incorporated in the rules and structures of a competitive energy market.

In some respects, the transition to a competitive electricity industry is more complicated in the Northwest because of the presence of the federal Bonneville Power Administration. Bonneville is a major factor in the region's power industry, supplying, on average, 40 percent of the power sold in the region and controlling more than half the region's high-voltage transmission. Bonneville benefits from the fact that it markets most of the region's low-cost hydroelectric power. It is hampered by the fact that it has high fixed costs, including the cost of past investments in nuclear power and the majority of the costs for salmon recovery. As a wholesale power supplier, Bonneville is already fully exposed to competition and is struggling to reduce its costs so that it can compete in the market. The transition to a competitive electricity industry raises many issues for the Bonneville Power Administration and the region. In the near term, how can Bonneville continue to meet its financial and environmental obligations in the face of intense competitive pressure? In the longer-term, when market prices rise and some of Bonneville's debt obligations have been retired, how can the Northwest retain the economic benefits of its low-cost hydroelectric power when the rest of the country is paying market prices? And finally, what is the appropriate role of a federal agency in a competitive market? The question is not only whether Bonneville can compete in the near term, but also, should it be a competitor?

Without Regional Consensus...?

While participants on the Comprehensive Review Steering Committee represented, by design, many divergent interests, they were fundamentally interconnected through one unifying value. Collectively, they share an abiding interest in the stewardship of a great regional resource — the Columbia River and its tributaries. The river is the link that brought all the parties together and unites them in a single, overriding goal. That goal is to protect and enhance the assets of this great natural resource for the people of the Pacific Northwest.

The federal power system in the Pacific Northwest has conferred significant benefits on the region for more than 50 years. The availability of inexpensive electricity at cost has supported strong economic growth and helped provide for other uses of the Columbia River, such as irrigation, flood control and navigation. The renewable and non-polluting hydropower system has helped maintain a high quality environment in the region.

But while the power system has produced significant benefits, these benefits came at a substantial cost to the fish and wildlife resources of the Columbia River basin. Salmon and steelhead populations have been reduced to historic lows, and many runs are or are about to be listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Resident fish and wildlife populations have also been affected. Native Americans and fishery-dependent communities, businesses and recreationists have suffered substantial losses due in significant part to construction and operation of the power system. The region's ability to sustain its core industries, support conservation and renewable resources, and restore salmon runs is clearly threatened if we cannot reach a consensus regional position to bring to the national electricity restructuring debate. Without a sustainable and financially healthy power system, funding for fish and wildlife restoration could be jeopardized.

The governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, in their charge to the Comprehensive Review, and the Steering Committee in their deliberations, recognized that the electricity industry is changing, whether we like it or not. The Comprehensive Review is not an initiation of change, but a response to change. It is an effort to shape that change, to the extent shaping is possible, to ensure that the potential benefits of competition are achieved and equitably shared, environmental goals are met, and the benefits of the hydroelectric system are preserved for the Northwest. The region's ability to shape the change in the Northwest electricity industry depends on its ability to develop a regional consensus. If the Comprehensive Review fails to result in a consensus for regional action, the electricity industry will still be restructured. A return to the historical industry structure is not an option. Many of the comments received during the public hearing process on the Steering Committee's draft recommendations made it clear that this is not a widely appreciated fact.

What is the likely evolution of the regional electricity market in the absence of effective regional consensus.

For wholesale power markets, federal policy advancing competition is already in place. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 888 express a strong commitment to opening access to the transmission system to make possible a competitive wholesale power market. Transmission will remain a FERC-regulated activity and will be strictly separated from generation to ensure that transmission owners cannot interfere in the efficient operation of the wholesale power market. Northwest utilities are already in the process of forming an independent transmission grid operator, called IndeGO. The purposes of the independent transmission grid operator are to ensure adequate separation of generation and transmission and to align incentives to ensure efficient and reliable operation of transmission. Bonneville is participating in the IndeGO discussions and has already administratively separated its transmission activities from its energy marketing. Further development of IndeGO will continue regardless of the Comprehensive Review.

Given the strong federal policy commitment to a competitive wholesale power market and an intensifying need for federal revenues, it is likely that without strong regional support for a different outcome, Bonneville's electricity eventually would be sold at market prices. Further, the incongruity of a federal agency as a full participant in a competitive market could result in limitations on Bonneville's market presence. This could be accomplished in many different ways, including auctioning the power, requiring Bonneville to market its power at prices that are tied to a market index, or limiting Bonneville's marketing of products and services. However it is done, any cost-based regional benefits that are derived from public or regional preference are likely to be reduced.

Current electricity policy at the federal level reserves retail market competition decisions to the states. However, recent congressional initiatives leave the degree of future state control in question. In any case, the pressure for retail access and its momentum are not in question. In the absence of either fairly strong federal legislation or coordinated regional policy, individual states are likely to move at different rates toward various forms of retail access policy with large power consumers tending to get first access. Unless adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that the owners of monopoly distribution systems cannot unfairly influence consumers' retail energy service choices, the development of competitive retail energy service markets for all consumers will be inhibited. Inconsistent policies among states within an integrated electricity market will lead to market advantages for some areas, a less efficient market, and arbitrage opportunities for electricity traders and marketers.

Utilities under competitive pressure to retain their customers will find it difficult to support the various social and environmental goals they have supported in the past. Competitive markets will support some social and environmental activity, and recent legislative proposals in Congress suggest that some programs could be mandated at the national level. However, absent action to place the funding of such activities with the separate and regulated elements of the market (transmission or distribution), emphasis on conservation, renewable energy sources and low-income support will decline. The greater the differences among states and utilities in the funding of these activities, the more distorted and less efficient will be the electricity markets.

The "base case" just described has some undesirable features. However, the region has the ability to manage the transition to competition to avoid or mitigate the undesirable features if it can reach consensus on the key features of the energy system.

The Comprehensive Review

The governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington convened the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System to seize opportunities and moderate risks presented by the transition of the region's power system to a more competitive electricity market. The governors appointed a 20-member Steering Committee that is broadly representative of the various stakeholders in the power system to study that system and make recommendations about its transformation. The members of the Steering Committee are listed in Appendix B. Each governor has a representative on the Steering Committee to make certain the public is educated about and involved in the Comprehensive Review. In establishing the review, the governors stated:

"The goal of this review is to develop, through a public process, recommendations for changes in the institutional structure of the region's electric utility industry. These changes should be designedto protect the region's natural resources and distribute equitably the costs and benefits of a more competitive marketplace, while at the same time assuring the region of an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power system."

Since January 1996, the Steering Committee has held 30 day-long meetings. In addition, almost 400 people have been involved in more than 100 meetings of various work groups reporting to the Steering Committee. Hundreds of citizens attended the 10 public hearings that were held throughout the region on the Committee's draft report. More than 700 written comments were received. This report is the product of that work. It is a recommendation for restructuring the Northwest electricity industry to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities inherent in the competitive transition.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The main features of the recommendations of the Steering Committee of the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System are summarized in the following sections. More detailed discussion of the recommendations is presented in the following chapters. For purposes of organization, this report is presented in six main topic areas: federal power marketing; governance of the Columbia River system (a related topic to federal power marketing); conservation, renewable resources and low-income energy services; consumer access to the competitive market; transmission; and future power system roles for a four-state regional body. Issues related to federal power marketing; conservation, renewable resources and low-income services; consumer access to the competitive market; and transmission were analyzed and discussed in work groups during the review process. Although described as distinct parts, this is an integrated set of recommendations, the parts of which are interdependent.

Federal Power Marketing — the Bonneville Power Administration

The Steering Committee's goals for federal power marketing are to: 1) align the benefits and risks of access to existing federal power; 2) ensure repayment of the debt to the U.S. Treasury with a greater probability than currently exists while not compromising the security or tax-exempt status of Bonneville's third-party debt; and 3) retain the long-term benefits of the system for the region. The recommendation is also intended to be consistent with emerging competitive markets and regional transmission solutions. The mechanism proposed to accomplish these goals is a subscription system for purchasing specified amounts of power at cost with incentives for customers to take longer-term (15 to 20 year) subscriptions. Public utility customers with small loads would be able to subscribe under contracts that would accommodate minor load growth. Subscriptions would be available first to regional customers in a specified multipart priority order, starting with preference customers, then the direct service industrial customers of Bonneville and the residential and small farm customers of those investor-owned utilities currently participating in Bonneville's residential exchange, followed by other regional customers. Non-regional customers could subscribe after in-region customers. Within each phase of the subscription process, longer-term contracts would have priority over shorter-term contracts if the system is oversubscribed.

Longer-term subscribers would have the right to purchase power at cost for the term of the contract. While the cost of the power from the federal system is currently somewhat above market prices, the costs are generally expected to be below market prices in the future. Short-term subscribers also get the right to purchase power at cost. If they wish to be assured the ability to renew their contracts at cost, they must pay an option fee for the term of their contracts to compensate the U.S. Treasury for the risk of shorter-term contracts. A sliding-scale option fee, ranging between 2 mills per kilowatt-hour for a five-year contract to 0 mills for a 15-20 year contract has been proposed.

The longer-term subscribers assume more risk than current Bonneville customers from the effects of year-to-year variations in weather, future power system cost increases and changes in market conditions. For example, if we were to experience lower than expected market prices that are below Bonneville costs for an extended period of time, the subscribers would still be obligated to pay Bonneville's costs. At the end of their subscription period, short-term subscribers would be able to let their subscriptions lapse and buy at market prices. If they let their subscriptions lapse, however, they would not be able to buy at cost in the future, should that become desirable.

The Steering Committee recognizes Bonneville's existing fish and wildlife obligations and intends that none of its recommendations affect existing trust obligations or treaty rights. The Steering Committee further recognizes that the region will need to provide most of the required fish and wildlife funding, but supports assistance and cost sharing by the federal government. The Committee recommends detailed multiyear fish and wildlife budgets be developed in government-to-government consultations by federal, state and tribal authorities. These budgets would be incorporated into Bonneville rate projections, allowing shorter-term customers certainty regarding fish and wildlife costs. If market prices are above costs, the Treasury would share in these benefits by getting some percentage of the difference between market prices and the cost. The Treasury's share would be applied to accelerate repayment of the federal debt.

Competition raises the possibility of stranded costs — previously incurred fixed costs that cannot be recovered at market prices. If successfully implemented, the subscription system should greatly reduce the possibility of Bonneville experiencing any stranded cost. However, if unmitigable stranded costs remain, a mechanism for recovery of those costs will be required.

Subscribers may resell power in cases of loss of load and/or to the extent allowed by existing law. Other commercial transactions by the subscriber would not disqualify the purchase of federal power. The benefits of purchases for residential and small farm customers of exchanging investor-owned utilities should be passed on to end users.

The recommendations would have the effect of disposing of much if not all of the firm power available from Bonneville on a long- or intermediate-term basis. The fact that most of Bonneville's power would be subscribed at cost would limit Bonneville's market role. Any remaining firm power and other power products would be sold at Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-regulated prices or at competitive prices, where FERC determines that competitive markets exist. To the extent consistent with its obligation to repay Treasury, Bonneville should return to its historic role of marketing power generated by the Federal Columbia River Power System, rather than becoming an aggressive marketer of products and services in the emerging competitive power market. Bonneville should develop a quantitative marketing plan. The plan should be presented to a transition board reporting to the Governors.

In addition, it is recommended that Bonneville would not acquire resources to serve its customers' load growth except on a direct bilateral basis where the customer takes on all the risk of the acquisition. Similarly, it is proposed that Bonneville would not sell directly to new retail loads, beyond the existing direct service industry loads, although it may sell through intermediaries whose transactions would be subject to state or local jurisdiction.

The Committee recommends that the governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington appoint a transition board to oversee implementation of these and other recommendations. In particular, the board should periodically determine whether the subscription process is making adequate progress or whether another approach is necessary.

Columbia River System Governance

The Steering Committee concluded that we cannot expect to achieve both the degree of cost stability the electricity industry requires to maintain the benefits of the Columbia River power system for the region and achieve sustainable fish restoration unless we ensure predictability, accountability and effective governance for the fish and wildlife interests of the river. In short, an effective conclusion of our effort is not possible without an improved system of river governance that pursues fish restoration as a high priority.

The Steering Committee was asked by the Northwest governors to focus on the restructuring of the electricity system and to address the financial stability of the federal power system. The Committee has done our best to recommend changes to the federal system that accomplish that goal. It fully recognizes that there are other important, related issues and decisions, including those affecting fish and wildlife, that must be resolved before a truly comprehensive package can be achieved.

The Steering Committee considered a number of matters related to the governance of the river and the power system. The role of the Northwest Power Planning Council in river governance was not addressed, but needs to be. The Governors should hold the Council or its successor accountable for ensuring that the region is making the most cost-effective use of fish and wildlife funding. River governance is a fundamental part of any effective response to changes in the electric utility industry. Until governance deliberations move forward through a government-to-government consultation among federal, state and tribal authorities, the prospects for a consensus on the regional response to utility restructuring are diminished and controversial. The Steering Committee requests the governors to initiate a broadly based discussion of improvements in river system governance that would provide more effective decision-making for this complex ecosystem and all of its competing uses.

Conservation, Renewable Resources and Low-Income Energy Services

The Northwest electric utility industry has a long and successful history of developing cost-effective conservation and supporting the development of renewable electricity sources, such as wind, geothermal and biomass energy. In addition, the utilities have played a major role in delivering weatherization to low-income households and helping low-income households with their energy bills. Competitive pressures, however, are expected to make significant changes in the ways utilities carry out these activities in the future. The goal of the Steering Committee's recommendations is to provide for maximum local control in the implementation of conservation, renewables and low-income energy services, while establishing an effective minimum standard that ensures stable funding for these purposes.

To ensure that cost-effective conservation, renewable resource development and low-income weatherization are sustained during the transition to competition and beyond, the Steering Committee recommends that by July 1, 1997, and annually thereafter for a period of 10 years, 3 percent of the revenues from the sale of electricity services in the region ($210 million in 1995) be dedicated to those purposes. After 10 years, this commitment should be re-evaluated. Three percent of revenues is roughly 65 percent of what was spent for these purposes by the region's utilities and Bonneville in 1995.

The Steering Committee recommends that by July 1, 1999, each of the Northwest states enact legislation that ensures that all electric utilities operating within its borders are meeting the minimum standard for investment in the development of conservation and renewable resources and provision of weatherization and energy-efficiency services to low-income consumers. Utilities should demonstrate compliance with the minimum standard by July 1, 1999. Public utilities may satisfy the standard in aggregate. If this minimum standard is not being met, the legislation should provide for the assessment of a uniform system benefits charge that ensures the collection and investment of funds for these purposes. Due to the rapid emergence of competitive pressures, the Committee strongly recommends prompt legislative action. Legislation implementing these requirements should be implemented simultaneously with open retail access.

The Steering Committee proposes that between two-thirds and five-sixths of the funds be retained by local distribution utilities to carry out locally initiated cost-effective conservation, low-income weatherization and energy-efficiency services and renewable energy projects. Conservation projects implemented and funded by large consumers should be credited against the local conservation target, not including low-income energy-efficiency services. Local utilities would also offer, or allow other electricity service providers to offer, "green" power to their consumers — power from renewable assistance energy sources. The Steering Committee recommends that utilities maintain their current level of low-income energy assistance until states adopt alternative mechanisms for providing these services. The report recognizes and affirms the energy system's historic role in providing energy assistance and proposes that states now provide this assistance by establishing a "Universal Electrical Service Fund" to provide energy bill assistance. This fund could be supported by federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds, state or local government funds, other funds and/or by a retail distribution system access fee or meters charge.

Some conservation and renewable resource activities benefit from regional planning and coordination. Consequently, it is proposed that between one sixth and one third of the funds be used by a regional non-profit entity with utility, government, consumer and public interest membership. Its functions would be to bring about changes in the markets for targeted energy-efficiency products and services that will improve their market share; to plan and contract for research and limited demonstration of renewable energy technologies, and to support the development of several megawatts annually of renewable generating capacity. A regional technical forum would be established to track regional progress toward the achievement of regional goals and provide feedback and suggestions for improving the effectiveness of conservation and renewable resource development programs. Funding for these activities should be collected in part through Bonneville wholesale rates to the extent regional firm loads are served by power from Bonneville.

How the funds are collected is a matter for state or local decision, as appropriate. The Steering Committee expects that methods of collection that are competitively neutral and affect all participants in the market equally will be found to be preferable.

Consumer Access to the Competitive Market

The goals of the recommendations on retail markets and customer choice are to encourage a more efficient power system, lower electricity costs, increased product choice and greater product innovation for all consumers. These goals were adopted subject to a commitment to maintain the reliability and safety of the electrical power system. The Steering Committee concluded that this goal could best be accomplished by putting in place a competitive electricity market that is driven by consumer choice. However, there is concern that the benefits of a competitive market may flow unevenly to different classes of consumers and that some small consumers may even suffer harm. The report recommends safeguards intended to help mitigate these concerns.

The Steering Committee recommends that regulators and local utility boards and commissions offer open access for all customers that desire it no later than July 1, 1999. The Committee recognizes that some of these regulatory bodies may choose to phase in full retail access. In these cases, a similar phase-in of the recommendations on conservation, renewable resources and low-income energy services may be effected.

Direct access may occur prior to July 1, 1999, however, for direct retail access to be implemented promptly, several activities must be accomplished. These include the identification of any stranded costs and, if any stranded costs are determined to exist, the creation of a stranded cost collection mechanism; unbundling and cost-based pricing of delivery services; pilot programs to explore aggregation for small commercial and residential customers; the exploration of market index pricing options for residential and small commercial customers; and implementation of public purposes funding, energy assistance funding and consumer protection mechanisms consistent with this report's recommendations.

To achieve a competitive retail electricity market requires separation of the distribution and electricity marketing functions of current retail utilities. This is necessary to ensure that consumers will have unimpeded access to alternative electricity suppliers, and vice versa, over the wires of the distribution utility. The distribution utility would continue to be a regulated monopoly responsible for the reliable and safe delivery of electricity from electric service companies to consumers over local distribution wires. Electricity service companies will offer a variety of electricity products and services (e.g., firm or interruptible power, power from renewable resources, peak or off-peak power, fixed or spot-market prices) to consumers on a competitive basis and may, in fact, offer other products unrelated to electricity markets. The electricity services portion of current integrated retail utilities could compete in this market if the distribution utility function is sufficiently separated from the electricity services business to ensure that control of distribution is not used to advantage the electricity services business.

Putting such a competitive market in place will require a significant transition and ongoing market maintenance procedures. There is a danger that, until competitive markets have fully developed for all consumers, some of the benefits of increased competition may be realized primarily by large consumers at the expense of small consumers. Therefore, the Steering Committee calls for active government oversight of the transition and active ongoing programs to facilitate and encourage the development of meaningful market access for all consumer classes and to prevent unwarranted cost shifts among consumer classes. Specifically, the policy calls for licensing of new electricity service providers, applicability of consumer protection laws, formal complaint processes, consumer information programs, and a "provider of last resort" to ensure continued affordable service to all consumers. To further minimize cost shifts to small consumers, policies should be adopted to provide utilities a fair opportunity to recover costs of previous investments that may be stranded by the opening of the market. This is viewed as a transitional problem only, and incentives must be included for utilities to mitigate any stranded costs they potentially face.

Transmission

Transmission is the "highway system" over which the products of electrical generation flow. If there is to be effective competition among generators, transmission facilities should be operated independently of generation ownership. An independent grid operator (IGO) regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with broad membership, including Bonneville and the region's other major transmission owners, is proposed as a means of ensuring independence of transmission operation and improving the efficiency of transmission operation. An independent grid operator should also have clear incentives to maintain reliability and encourage efficient use of the transmission system.

The independent operation of Bonneville's transmission facilities is particularly important to effective competition among generators in this region because Bonneville's facilities make up a large part of the regional transmission system. To ensure this independence, it is recommended that Bonneville be legally separated into two organizations — a power marketing organization to market the power from the federal power system and a transmission organization to carry out the transmission functions. The separation of these functions should be structured so that it does not jeopardize or diminish the legal obligation and ability of Bonneville to meet fish and wildlife and other obligations. A separated federal transmission owner (e.g., the Bonneville Transmission Corporation) could lease its assets to an independent grid operator, or could be an independent grid operator and operate other participants' assets if FERC and the other participants agree.

Legislation will be required to accomplish these goals. While legislation is under consideration, Bonneville should move quickly to achieve as much administrative separation as possible, and to participate in efforts to form an independent grid operator that could operate both federal and non-federal transmission assets.

Future Power System Role for a Four-State Regional Body

When the Northwest Power Act was passed in 1980, the authors contemplated an extended time of electricity shortage and the need for increasingly costly large-scale power plants. The Northwest Power Planning Council was established with two representatives from each of the Northwest states (Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington) to provide the states and the public a role in determining the region's future need for electricity and how that need could best be met. The Council was also charged with furthering the goals of: encouraging conservation and renewable resources; helping assure an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power system; providing environmental quality; and protecting, mitigating, and enhancing the fish and wildlife of the Columbia Basin.

The Power Planning Council has been credited with many improvements in electricity planning. However, in an era in which market forces will play the primary role in determining what plants are built and what can be charged for their output, the Council's resource acquisition planning role is no longer relevant. The Steering Committee believes, however. that the remaining goals are still important to the citizens of the region. The issue is how they are to be achieved in the context of a competitive market.

There is much that is unknown about the competitive future we are about to embrace. As the Northwest transitions toward a competitive electricity industry, there are roles that the region would want carried out by a regional body. These roles do not involve resource acquisition planning, regulation or implementation. They do involve monitoring and analyzing the transition to a competitive electricity market and informing policy-makers and the public. This will help ensure that the transition to a competitive market is accomplished efficiently and fairly throughout the region and that the public values the Northwest has sought from its power system are preserved and enhanced.

These roles include:

Conservation and Renewables — working with regional interests to devise ways of overcoming market barriers, participating in market transformation activities, providing guidance in meeting the region's conservation and renewable goals and working with the regional technical forum to track regional progress;

The Competitive Marketplace — providing information, evaluation and analysis of the evolving marketplace to ensure full, fair and effective competition throughout the region; and

Public Participation and Involvement— informing and involving interested members of the public on matters that affect them, their environment and their economy.

The funding of the Northwest Power Planning Council has been through a charge on Bonneville Power Administration rates. If federal legislation affecting the role of the Northwest Power Planning Council or a similar regional body is pursued, the question of the level and sources of the funding should be addressed.

FEDERAL POWER MARKETING: THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION — ADAPTING TO A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT, PRESERVING THE BENEFITS OF LOW-COST HYDROPOWER FOR THE NORTHWEST

Goals

The Steering Committee's goals for federal power marketing are to: 1) align the benefits and risks of access to existing federal power; 2) ensure repayment of the debt to the U.S. Treasury with a greater probability than currently exists while not compromising the security or tax-exempt status of the Bonneville Power Administration's (Bonneville's) third-party debt; and 3) retain the long-term benefits of the system for the region. This recommendation is also intended to be consistent with emerging competitive markets and regional transmission solutions.

Background

Bonneville is a federal power marketing agency charged with marketing the power output of the federal dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. It is a wholesale supplier, marketing power to utilities that, in turn, sell power to retail consumers. The only exceptions are the direct service industries, which historically have been served directly by Bonneville. On average, Bonneville markets about 40 percent of the firm power in the Northwest and substantial, but varying, amounts of nonfirm power. Bonneville is required to sell its firm power (the power that can be counted upon even under poor water conditions) at cost under contracts to public agency customers (e.g., municipal utilities, public utility districts, cooperatives), residential and small farm customers of utilities that are not public agencies, and direct service industries. Only when it cannot sell all its power within the region is it allowed to market outside the region. As a result of the Northwest Power Act of 1980, Bonneville also has the responsibility of acquiring new resources to meet the loads of those customers that choose to place their growing load requirements on Bonneville.

Historically, Bonneville has been a low-cost supplier of electricity. In recent years, however, Bonneville's power has lost its price advantage. This has been the result of a combination of factors, including low natural gas prices, surplus generating capacity on the West Coast, the opening of the competitive wholesale electricity market and the resulting decline in electricity prices. Bonneville has also experienced increased costs resulting from requirements for salmon recovery, resource acquisition costs and other factors. Bonneville's ability to reduce costs is hampered by the fact that a large part of its costs are fixed. These fixed costs include repayment of debt to the U.S. Treasury for the construction of the hydroelectric and transmission systems and repayment of the debt for three Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear power plants.

The opening of wholesale electric competition has put great stress on Bonneville. Bonneville's utility and direct service industry customers now have a greater degree of choice under amended or new power sales contracts, and current power sales contracts will expire in 2001. Bonneville has been struggling to determine its future competitive role and to secure sufficient sales to cover its costs and make its payments to the Treasury and the Supply System. The ultimate risk, should Bonneville be unable to cover its costs, lies with the Treasury. While this is occurring, many of Bonneville's traditional customers, particularly those without generating resources, continue to look to the agency as their primary or exclusive power supplier.

In the future, however, conditions are likely to change. Many industry observers expect that gas prices and the market price of electricity will eventually rise. In addition, Bonneville's fixed costs can be expected to fall as debt is paid off. When this happens, the price of Bonneville's power would be very attractive. Whether the Northwest will be able to retain these future benefits has been brought into question, in part due to legislation that would sell federal power marketing agencies. Even if Bonneville is not privatized, the revenues that a low-cost power producer could generate could be very attractive to future Congresses, particularly if the Treasury has been called upon to bear the risks of that power producer when conditions were not so favorable. In this context, a long-term solution that retains the benefits of the system in the Northwest would be highly desirable.

Finally, there is the question of the appropriate role of a federal agency in a competitive market. Right now, Bonneville is struggling to compete. In the longer-term, as restructuring proceeds and the electricity industry becomes more and more competitive, the question may no longer be "can Bonneville compete?" but "should Bonneville compete?"

Recommendations

Summary

The Steering Committee recommends the institution of a subscription-based system for marketing the electricity produced by the federal system. The subscription process would maintain the principles of public and regional preference to the output of the Bonneville system at cost. The recommendation is designed to facilitate a fully competitive bulk power market and freedom of action by customers. Simultaneously, it is intended to better balance risk and rewards among customers, Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury. The subscription system is central to aligning the risks and benefits of the federal power system, and to reducing the risk faced by the Treasury. Treasury currently faces the risk of market prices below cost, but does not receive the benefit when market prices are above costs.

Subscribers would contract to purchase power from the system at cost, take or pay, for the period of their subscriptions, including periods similar to what the region is now experiencing when costs are above market prices. Subscribers would also be able to purchase at cost when costs are below market levels. The power product contracted for could vary depending on the requirements of the customer.

Bonneville would not acquire additional resources to serve load growth except on a bilateral contract basis, where the customer absorbs the risk. However Bonneville could offer short-term products and services that are responsive to variations in loads from planning estimates to those customers willing to pay for such services. Bonneville would not sell directly to new retail loads, beyond the existing direct service industry loads. Moreover, if the system is fully subscribed, there would be no need for Bonneville to market to retail loads.

No remedy is possible unless Bonneville can effectively manage and control its costs. In this recommendation, subscribers would gain advisory influence over power-related costs and would have the ability to call for binding arbitration on certain cost issues under their contracts.

Several provisions of the subscription process are specifically intended to provide benefits to the Treasury and preclude the need for stranded cost mechanisms. However, to the extent that unmitigable stranded costs remain, then a mechanism to recover these costs will be required.

The Committee recommended a transition board appointed by the governors, to oversee the subscription process and report to the governors on its prospects for success, among other potential tasks.

Disposition of Federal Power

Long-term subscriptions provide stability to Bonneville, the Treasury and customers. However, a number of customers, particularly those without generating resources, may want to contract for much of their load in shorter-term intervals as they make the adjustment to new competitive markets.

The core or basic product of federal power marketing is energy from the federal system. Depending upon limitations of availability, contracts for this product should be available to regional customers at cost. Customers may then purchase other services that are individually priced by Bonneville to change this energy into a product that meets their needs, or alternatively they may provide it themselves. In addition, customers may be willing to purchase the energy for differing periods of time or with different obligations placed on Bonneville. This affects the degree of risk the Treasury is absorbing, and in turn should be reflected in the price the customer is required to pay.

One product could be provided for customers with predictable loads, or ones that acquire load shaping services from another entity. Alternatively, Bonneville would offer a take-and-pay arrangement for customers that want to rely upon Bonneville to serve their actual monthly loads. The latter service would cost more in order to cover the revenue uncertainty that Bonneville would face as a consequence.

Long-term subscribers get the right to purchase power at cost for the term of the contract, up to 20 years. While the cost of the power from the federal system is currently somewhat above market prices, the cost is generally expected to be below market prices in the future. For potential subscribers to make a long-term commitment to Bonneville, particularly at a time when the agency's rates are above market, Bonneville needs to take actions that push the envelope of cost reductions. In addition to the agency's own initiatives in reducing costs, long-term contracts need to be structured in a manner that is very explicit regarding the limitations on the customer's obligation to pay.

Short-term subscribers also get the right to purchase power at cost, paying the same general costs as the long-term customers. For at least the short-term following 2001, renewable contracts of shorter duration place an element of potential risk on the Treasury, associated with customers leaving if Bonneville costs became significantly higher than market. Because of this, the short-term subscribers are required to pay an option or subscription fee if they want to reserve the right to re-subscribe at cost after the contract expires. The option fee would enable the customer to either extend the cost-based contract, or to reduce or terminate loads on Bonneville at the end of the existing contract commitment. The option fee is a premium payment reflecting the risk to the system and to the Treasury of shorter-term contracts. A customer also has the choice of purchasing cost-based power without paying an additional option fee under the initial offering. However, at the end of that customer's purchase term, that customer will be able to purchase power from Bonneville only at market-based rates. This further purchase ability does not imply preferential access at market prices.

The option fee should be priced to reflect its value, while at the same time not making it economically and competitively prohibitive. Using a range of market conditions and assumptions regarding Bonneville costs, Bonneville and the Northwest Power Planning Council have identified a sliding scale option fee ranging from 0 mills/kilowatt-hour for long-term (i.e., 15- to 20-year) contracts to 2 mills/kilowatt-hour for five-year contracts. Bonneville should prospectively develop competitively priced tools that balance risks and rewards between shorter-term and longer-term load commitments and that reflect the overriding purpose of compensating the Treasury for the risk associated with shorter-term contracts. Short-term subscribers could continue to purchase short-term in the future by purchasing subsequent option fees, or they could convert to long-term contracts without subsequent option fees.

The subscribers assume a greater level of risk than in the current system. For example, if the region were to experience lower than expected market prices that are below Bonneville costs for an extended period of time, the long-term subscribers would still be obligated to pay Bonneville's costs. Short-term subscribers would be able, at the end of their subscription period, to let their subscriptions lapse, but may elect to stay, hoping to realize the longer-term savings associated with the system. There would be a higher level of annual probability of Treasury payments, placing more risk on the subscribers from the effects of year-to-year variations in weather, future power system cost increases (e.g., the cost of generator rewinds and other necessary maintenance and upgrades) and changes in market conditions.

The process for the disposition of federal power should be completed by 2001, so that the results can be in place when Bonneville's existing contracts expire. The term of the contracts would be determined by the individual subscribers, during their initial subscriptions for firm power. Although 20 years would provide maximum contract certainty for Bonneville under current law, it is in the agency's best interest not to have all contracts expire at the same time, as is the case in 2001. Firm power would be subscribed for by month with appropriate ancillary delivery services. Any remaining firm power and other products should be sold at prices regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or at competitive prices, where FERC determines that competitive markets exist, and revenues should be used to reduce costs to the subscribers.

At the end of a contract, whether long or short-term, the purchaser has a right of first refusal to renew the contract for subsequent periods so long as the appropriate option fee has been paid. The initial subscription, and any subsequent ones, would follow a specific priority order. Any power that is freed up as a result of non-renewal of contracts would be offered to others at cost through the same priority structure described below.

Priority for Subscriptions

The priority order for subscriptions would be implemented in a sequential multiphase process. Customers could elect to split their subscriptions between long- and short-term contracts. The phases are structured so that publicly owned utilities get first priority; direct service industries and representatives of residential and small farm customers of investor-owned utilities get second priority; other regional customers, such as representatives of investor-owned utility commercial and industrial customers, get next priority; and non-regional customers get last priority. Within this overall framework, there is an emphasis on long-term subscriptions, so that, to the extent there is a conflict due to over-subscription within a phase, subscription term would be the tie-breaker, with the longer-term having priority. Customers having long-term contracts or those that paid an option fee should have broad rights to extend, renew or convert their contracts to longer-terms, up to 20 years, at any time during the contract life, independent of the length of the existing contract, provided at the time of renewal they have a qualified load.

Phase 1

In the first phase, loads of regional public utilities and cooperatives would subscribe with no limitations on the term, within the current 20-year maximum. The first phase would be reserved for publicly owned utilities to subscribe up to the average of the contractual entitlements of the highest two consecutive years of the 1997-2001 contract period, plus some provision for minor load growth of small full-requirements utilities representing in the aggregate no more than 1,000 average megawatts of Bonneville load. Additional load growth of these small utilities and the load growth of other public utilities may be met through bilateral contracts or tiered rates.

Phase 2

During the second phase, the direct service industries and the residential and small farm customers of the investor-owned utilities (through their representatives, described below) would be allowed to subscribe with no limitations on term, within the current 20-year maximum. The direct service industries' subscriptions would be limited by the average of the contractual entitlements of the highest two consecutive years of the 1997-2001 contract period. Each investor-owned utility customer subscription would be limited by the average total actual regional exchange load of its residential and small farm customers, again, in the two highest consecutive years between 1997 and 2001. If there is over-subscription, subscription term will serve as the tie breaker, with the longer-term having priority.

For the purposes of the subscriptions, investor-owned utility residential and small farm customers could be represented by investor-owned utilities or other entities that serve Northwest residential or small farm loads, as certified by state regulators. The benefits of purchases for these customers should be passed through to the end users.

Phase 3

The third phase would be for other regional wholesale and direct service industry loads. Each subscription is limited by the subscriber's total regional load. To the extent there is over-subscription in this phase, longer-term subscriptions will have priority.

Phase 4

In the fourth phase, Bonneville could sell to regional wholesale and direct service industry loads at market prices for those who wish to buy only at market prices in the future. In addition, Bonneville could sell "excess" federal power for periods up to seven years to out-of-region customers. "Excess" is a defined term in recent legislation. Power sold in this phase would be sold subject to current law. As a principle, the Steering Committee believes that in-region customers of Bonneville should have the ability to secure non-recallable Bonneville contracts of a time period at least equal to out-of-region customers of Bonneville.

Subsequent Subscriptions

To the extent firm power becomes available as a result of non-renewal of contracts, the remaining power will be offered through the same multiphase process described above. Customers that elect not to subscribe to Bonneville, or that subsequently allow short-term subscriptions to lapse would be served at market prices in the future. Contracts subject to recall for public preference under current law would be subject to recall only for loads of new public utilities and after a waiting period of up to five years from formation of the utility, depending on the availability of power.

Resale of Power

Subscribers may resell the power for which they have subscribed for the remaining term of the contract in cases of loss of load and/or to the extent allowed by existing law. Power will be considered to be delivered to regional loads if, at the time of delivery, the subscriber serves qualifying loads equal to or greater than the amount delivered. Other commercial transactions by the subscriber should not disqualify the purchase of federal power.

The Exchange

As a result of the Northwest Power Act of 1980, Northwest utilities have the right to sell to Bonneville an amount of power equal to that required to serve their residential and small farm customers at the utilities' average system costs and receive an equal amount of power at Bonneville's average system cost. In reality, this is an accounting transaction. No power is actually delivered. This was intended to be a mechanism to share the benefits of the low-cost federal hydropower system with the residential and small farm customers of the region's investor-owned utilities. As a result of decisions made by Bonneville in its most recent rate case, those benefits have been reduced. The Steering Committee acknowledges that the residential and small farm consumers of exchanging investor-owned utilities will be adversely affected by the reduction of exchange benefits. Congress intervened for one year to stabilize the exchange benefits. However, on October 1, 1997, there will be rate increases to the residential and small farm customers of the exchanging utilities. The Steering Committee encourages the parties to continue settlement discussions and to explore other paths to ensure that residential and small farm loads receive an equitable share of the benefits of the federal base system.

Fish and Wildlife

The Steering Committee recognizes that fish and wildlife restoration and mitigation obligations exist and expressly intends that none of its recommendations should be implemented in a way that alters, amends, diminishes or repeals the trust obligations of the federal government, or the treaty and other rights of the tribes, including those rights associated with tribal hunting and fishing, water and other natural resources.

The Committee recognizes that the cost of additional fish and wildlife restoration investments beyond those currently contemplated in the fish and wildlife Memorandum of Agreement is unknown. Additional costs could be incurred, particularly if measures are undertaken to restore historic river conditions in some segments of the Columbia River Basin. The Committee believes that the region will need to provide the bulk of those fish and wildlife restoration funds. At the same time, the Committee emphasizes the importance of an energy industry restructuring package that shares the future benefits of the power system among the parties in the region. The Committee believes that the federal government should provide additional assistance and share the costs in the restoration effort, particularly given the provisions of the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Endangered Species Act and the fact that federal land and water management practices have had an adverse effect on fish and wildlife populations that are being protected and restored with regional ratepayer funds.

The Committee further recommends that flexible, but detailed, multiyear fish and wildlife budgets are essential to the accountability and fiscal management of the restoration effort and should be developed in government-to-government consultations by the federal, state and tribal sovereign governments on a rolling five-year basis. Budgets of this kind will help discipline the restoration efforts and will help provide relative certainty for the power system and fish and wildlife managers.

This recommendation assumes that sufficient information will be available before 2001 to prepare a five-year fish recovery budget, and that the input from this process could be incorporated into Bonneville rate projections. This process should provide shorter-term customer certainty regarding fish costs, and the opportunity for fixed five-year rates, as Bonneville is currently offering through 2001.

Ownership Benefits for the U.S. Treasury

Currently, the overall "risk taker" regarding Bonneville's responsibility to meet financial targets is the U.S. Treasury, as the recipient of annual debt payments from Bonneville. To the extent that Bonneville secures revenues to cover all costs including Treasury payments, there is no incremental risk to the Treasury. However, in the event that Bonneville's revenues are not sufficient to cover its costs, including Treasury obligations, the shortfall would be handled as a deferral of any difference between the Treasury obligation and the actual payment.

It is financially unstable and politically undesirable to anticipate a federal power marketing agency operating in an environment in which the Treasury faces excessive financial risk and/or a probability that there will be a deferral of obligations on a recurring basis.

During the last 13 years, Bonneville has not deferred a Treasury payment. Also, with newly adopted rates, Bonneville is not projecting a deferral for the five-year period through 2001. However, the amount of money involved is significant, which in turn makes the risk to the federal government significant. Between 2002 and 2006 Bonneville is scheduled to pay a total of $2.063 billion to the Treasury, with a net present value of $1.661 billion. Over a 25-year period, these amounts are $11.848 billion, with a net present value of $5.029 billion.

Bonneville faces in 2001 an environment in which customer contracts expire, markets may be lower than agency costs and there is uncertainty regarding fish mitigation costs. In the longer-term, market conditions should change to Bonneville's favor, but not necessarily by 2001. A solution needs to be found that both improves Treasury's position from the status quo, and over time offers an incentive to the federal government to continue operating Bonneville. Four actions are recommended to address this situation.

  1. As referred to in other sections, Bonneville needs to pursue all actions possible in the short-term to cut costs, thereby giving the agency the best opportunity to either meet or come close to competitive market prices with cost-based products, thereby retaining a strong customer base.
  2. To the extent that there is a deferral of any portion of the Treasury payment in any year, this should become an immediate repayment obligation when Bonneville's costs fall below market. When Bonneville has an opportunity to adjust rates and there is a projected positive difference in Bonneville's favor between market and cost, the next set of rates would remain at market for a sufficient period to fully recover any obligations that had been deferred from the previous period.
  3. As described in the section on "Disposition of Federal Power," shorter-term subscriptions will pay an option fee or other higher price that would prospectively reimburse the Treasury for losses or deferrals due to the short term of the subscriptions. This revenue should be used by Treasury to accelerate repayment of Bonneville's debt.
  4. When Bonneville's cost-based rates are below market, customers would agree that subsequent rates would contain an additional share of the difference between an indexed market rate and cost-based rates. This share would be paid to Treasury as a "repayment acceleration payment" as a supplement to each annual obligation. The customers still benefit to the extent that these funds are being applied against Bonneville Treasury payments, which will reduce their future costs over time. The U.S. Treasury benefits in that it is receiving cash that is otherwise not due until a future date. This provision would apply to the extent that market prices exceed cost-based rates where the costs include any repayment of past deferrals due to the previous provisions.

Stranded Cost

The Committee believes that the recommendations in this report, prudently implemented, should dramatically reduce any risk that Bonneville would need to seek stranded cost recovery. Nevertheless, Bonneville, like other Northwest utilities, faces the prospect of load loss due to increased competition associated with greater customer choice at the wholesale and retail levels. It is this Committee's expectation that Bonneville will do all that it can to manage its costs and take other appropriate actions to avoid a stranded cost charge. However, to the extent unmitigable stranded costs remain, then a mechanism to recover these costs will be required.

Customer Advisory Committee

Customers, particularly those signing up for long-term commitments, need to have an effective mechanism to assure them that Bonneville's revenues and costs over time reflect the intent of their power sales contracts. Existing federal legislation allows for appointments of advisory committees to assist agencies such as Bonneville, without exercising formal governance responsibilities. The Bonneville administrator would continue to report to the Department of Energy, but would receive strong customer input through an advisory committee. The committee would consist mainly of subscribers, but also would include representatives of other interests. The committee would review Bonneville's budget requests, overall capital budgeting levels and operating cost levels, rate setting, key marketing issues, and provide input into the power-related capital and operating cost decisions of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The committee would provide input to decision-making authorities on fish-related matters. However, final decisions regarding fish measures should remain squarely within the purview of the existing or future mechanisms for river governance.

Although the advisory committee should be helpful in establishing policy direction for the power operations of Bonneville, it is not the primary or exclusive mechanism for subscribers to determine their business relationship with Bonneville. New power sales contracts will define the nature of the business relationship between Bonneville and individual customers. These contracts will have common features and unique characteristics depending upon the types of services the customer is buying from Bonneville. It is proposed that the contracts contain an ability for subscribers to call for binding arbitration on specific power cost-related items that do not affect implementation of fish recovery measures.

Bonneville in the Competitive Market

Bonneville should plan to achieve sufficient net revenues from unsubscribed products to meet Treasury payments and maintain cost-based rates to subscribers. Speculative risk to Treasury and subscribers should be minimized. To the extent consistent with its obligation to repay Treasury, Bonneville should return to its historic role of marketing power generated by the Federal Columbia River Power System, rather than becoming an aggressive marketer of products and services in the emerging competitive power market. A quantitative plan for marketing should be presented to the transition board described below reporting to the four Northwest governors.

This recommendation would have the effect of disposing of much if not all of the firm power available from Bonneville on a long- or intermediate-term basis. The fact that most of Bonneville's power would be subscribed at cost would limit Bonneville's market role. Any remaining firm power and other unbundled power products would be sold at prices regulated by FERC or at competitive prices, where FERC determines that competitive markets exist. This approach is intended to provide means for Bonneville to meet its financial obligations, but Bonneville's role in competitive markets must be further defined to respond to concerns about a governmental entity as a participant in these markets.

In addition, Bonneville would not acquire resources to serve its customers' load growth except on a direct bilateral basis, where the customer takes on all the risk of the acquisition. However, Bonneville would be making spot-market power purchases sufficient to: 1) supplement monthly firm hydro energy in meeting current firm loads, and 2) store water for flow augmentation to help rebuild fish populations. This recommendation distinguishes these spot-market purchases, which are not necessarily required to be on a bilateral contract basis, from purchases to meet load growth, which are required to be on a bilateral contract basis.

Finally, Bonneville would not sell directly to new retail loads, beyond the existing direct service industry loads, though it may sell through intermediaries whose transactions would be subject to state or local jurisdiction.

Governors' Transition Board

To ensure public accountability, regional acceptance and prompt implementation of the Committee's recommendations, the governors should appoint a high-level board. This board shall be known as the Northwest Energy Review Transition Board. The Board should remain in place until the recommendations of the Review are implemented or 2001, whichever is sooner.

The Board will work with regional interests and Bonneville in a public process to oversee the subscription process and provide liaison with the Northwest congressional delegation and affected constituencies. The Board periodically should determine whether Bonneville and its customers are making adequate progress on the subscription process or, if they are not likely to succeed on a timely basis, whether another approach is necessary. The Board should periodically report its findings to the governors.

The Transition Board would review Bonneville's progress on the development of procedures for offering and pricing products and services, and Bonneville's role in the competitive market. The Board also would assist the region in responding to federal legislation.

In addition, the Board should be responsible for making recommendations to assist in implementation of the Review's recommendations.

COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM GOVERNANCE

Perhaps the central challenge the governors of our four states have given the Comprehensive Review is to advise them as to how the many benefits of the Columbia River system can best be preserved. The Steering Committee has struggled with this challenge and has made considerable progress. At a time when the electricity industry is already engaged in monumental regulatory and related changes, the challenges the river system faces bring an additional dimension of instability that is particularly unsettling. The region cannot expect to achieve both the degree of cost stability the electricity industry requires to maintain the benefits of the Columbia River power system for the region and achieve sustainable fish restoration unless it ensures predictability, accountability and effective governance for the fish and wildlife interests of the river. In short, an effective conclusion of the Committee's effort is not possible without an improved system of river governance that pursues fish restoration as a high priority

The Steering Committee was asked by the Northwest governors to focus on the restructuring of the electricity system and to address the financial stability of the federal power system. The Committee has done its best to recommend changes to the federal system that accomplish that goal. The Committee fully recognizes that there are other important, related issues and decisions, including those affecting fish and wildlife, that must be resolved before a truly comprehensive package can be achieved. As the governors consider the Steering Committee's recommendations, they should use the opportunity to consult with the appropriate federal, state and tribal authorities and urge that the fishery issues are moved forward with the same level of zeal and dispatch in a parallel process on the same schedule as implementation of these recommendations. Addressing both power and fish concerns will help achieve a consensus in the region that will benefit our efforts as federal restructuring legislation advances.

The Steering Committee considered a number of matters related to the governance of the river and the power system. The role of the Northwest Power Planning Council in river governance was not addressed, but needs to be. River governance is a fundamental part of any effective response to changes in the electric utility industry. Until governance deliberations move forward in government-to-government consultation among federal, state and tribal authorities, the prospects for a consensus on the regional response to utility restructuring are diminished and controversial.

To ensure accountability, the governors should insist that the Council or its successor agency include in its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program a prioritized budget for investments in fish and wildlife measures, including the relative priority of operational changes to the hydropower system. The governors should hold the Council or its successor accountable for ensuring that the region is making the most effective use of available fish and wildlife funding.

For some, the issue of river governance appears as intractable as any the region has ever faced. However, there is reason for hope. Many of the stakeholders have been working together in various forums. The Committee believes consensus is possible and believes it is important to pursue it on a schedule that ensures that the issue can be addressed expeditiously.

The Steering Committee requests the governors to initiate a broadly based discussion of improvements in the river system's governance mechanisms that would provide for more effective decision-making for this complex ecosystem and all of its competing uses.

CONSERVATION, RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND LOW-INCOME ENERGY SERVICES — REFLECTING THE VALUES AND MEETING THE NEEDS OF NORTHWEST CITIZENS

Goals

Three clear goals are proposed for conservation, renewable resources and low-income energy services:

  • Conservation — to ensure that all cost-effective electric efficiency opportunities are captured in a manner consistent with increasingly competitive electricity markets.
  • Renewable resources — to continue to develop renewable resources in the region.
  • For residents of the Northwest who must live on limited incomes — to ensure low-income consumers are adequately, affordably and fairly served in a competitive electricity market.

The Steering Committee believes that the goals for conservation and renewable resources should be achieved by relying, wherever possible, on market forces to accomplish cost-effective conservation and renewable resources. However, the Steering Committee recognizes that the market for energy-efficiency services may not capture all cost-effective conservation. Similarly, potentially valuable renewable resource technologies, which are not currently economically competitive, may benefit from regional investments that reduce their future costs. The Steering Committee also recognized that competitive markets are unlikely to provide households with limited incomes with means to meet their basic electricity services needs at the same level and quality they currently enjoy.

The Steering Committee is recommending that during the transition to a competitive electricity market, the region's retail electricity suppliers should commit 3 percent of their retail energy service revenues (estimated to be approximately $210 million in 1995) to facilitating the development of cost-effective conservation and appropriate renewable resource options, and sustaining appropriate low-income energy services. The Steering Committee recommends that tariffs, rates or other fees imposed to collect these funds be implemented simultaneously with implementation of open retail access.

The Steering Committee acknowledges the resolutions and letters of support for public purposes that were submitted by the region's public utilities commenting on the draft proposal. Committee members urge these publicly-owned power systems to honor their commitments. The Steering Committee believes that its recommendations provide for maximum local control while establishing an effective minimum standard that ensures stable funding for the public purpose recommendations.

Background

Conservation

For nearly two decades, electric utilities in the Northwest have been the dominant force behind the development of conservation. The rationale for utilities' active pursuit of conservation stemmed from the fact that, until quite recently, the cost of new power generation exceeded the price charged consumers for electricity. Individual consumers were not paying the full cost of new generation, so acquiring new generating resources to serve new loads raised everyone's rates. When utilities acquired conservation at a lower cost than new generation, the total cost of electricity for all consumers was less.

Conservation faces a different environment today than it did just a few years ago:

  • The costs of new resources avoided by conservation are lower, leaving fewer conservation measures cost-effective.
  • Retail electricity prices for many consumers are currently above the marginal cost of new generation. This means that these consumers have greater economic incentive to invest in conservation than do utilities.
  • Competitive pressures, particularly retail access, make it more difficult for utilities to include the cost of conservation programs in their rates. If a utility adds the cost of conservation invested in one customer's home or business to the rates charged to all its customers, some customers may seek an alternative supplier whose costs do not include conservation.

Despite these changes, conservation that costs less than alternative sources of power remains available for development in the region. For example, in its 1996 draft power plan, the Northwest Power Planning Council estimated that approximately 1,500 average megawatts of conservation would be cost-effective to develop in the region over the next 20 years. This is roughly equivalent to the electricity demand of a city half again as large as Seattle. There is some controversy about these estimates. The Steering Committee has not independently verified the Council's draft estimates, nor does it endorse them. However, even if these estimates are significantly reduced, the amount of cost-effective conservation remaining to be developed appears large enough to warrant efforts to ensure that it is developed.

There is currently some momentum behind conservation in the region. This momentum is created by existing utility activities, and the funding already committed to those activities, as well as market forces. This momentum could prompt the development of approximately one-third of the region's cost-effective conservation potential over the next few years. By the year 2000, however, competitive pressures on utilities and persistent market barriers could cause the rate of conservation development to decline below the rate necessary to capture all of the region's cost-effective conservation potential. On the other hand, utility customer service efforts and the actions of the market could result in an adequate pace of conservation development. Today, we do not know how much conservation will be developed by the market or by utility efforts, nor do we know what the true nature of the utility business will be in the future.

The Steering Committee is concerned about what happens during the transition and about what conditions will prevail after the turn of the century. Many of the market barriers to development of conservation resources still exist: lack of reliable information; different economic incentives for owners and renters, and manufacturers and consumers; and energy prices that do not fully reflect the environmental costs of that energy. The Committee expects the competitive market for efficiency products and services to be stimulated by the opening of competition. However, the market for efficiency services is still immature. The development of this market should be closely monitored, particularly in the industrial and large commercial sectors where most of the conservation potential is thought to exist. The experience thus far from countries that have already opened up their electricity markets to competition seems to indicate that the market for efficiency products and services will not develop quickly without special attention.

Renewable Resources

Renewable resources can offer unique social and energy system benefits. These benefits include environmental value, such as the avoidance of carbon dioxide emissions that may be contributing to global climate change; resource diversity; and local economic benefits. Some applications of renewable resources, for example, the use of solar photovoltaics in remote locations, are cost-effective today. However, utility-scale solar, wind and geothermal technologies still are more expensive than gas-fired combustion turbines and current market prices. For example, several renewable resource projects designed to confirm various technologies under Northwest conditions are being developed by Northwest utilities and Bonneville. As a result of recent declines in the price of new power generation, these projects are anticipated to produce electricity that is from one and one-half to four times more costly than gas-fired combustion turbines. In an increasingly competitive electricity market, additional renewable resources may not be developed unless their economics improve or consumers demonstrate a willingness to purchase their power at somewhat higher prices because of their environmental benefits.

Though few renewable resources are cost-effective in the near-term, ensuring that renewables are available for future development may have appreciable economic value. An unexpectedly rapid rise in natural gas prices and/or the adoption of carbon dioxide control measures could favorably alter the economics of renewables. For instance, although such estimates are inherently uncertain, it has been estimated that the imposition of a carbon tax of $40 per ton in the year 2005 could increase the lifetime benefits of developing renewables in the Northwest to just under $1 billion compared to $28 million in the no-carbon-tax case.

Low-Income Energy Services

Programs to ensure that low-income consumers are adequately and fairly served include: 1) energy- efficiency services, 2) energy assistance, and 3) customer service practices. Energy-efficiency services include traditional weatherization, creative efficiency programs and consumer education. Energy bill assistance includes emergency assistance, rate discounts, percentage-of-income payment plans, fuel funds, traditional payment assistance programs, such as the federal Low-income Heating Energy Assistance Program and integration of services with other social service agencies.

Approximately 14 percent of the households in the Northwest are estimated to have incomes below 125 percent of federal poverty guidelines. This amounts to 540,000 households. About 55 to 65 percent of the dwellings occupied by low-income households that are heated with electricity have yet to be fully weatherized. This translates into between 165,000 and 235,000 electrically heated homes, apartments and mobile homes that are not as energy efficient as they should be given current and expected future electricity costs. This means higher electricity bills for those who can least afford them.

Historically, low-income energy service programs have been funded by a combination of federal, state and utility sources. In 1995, roughly $19 million per year was provided for low-income weatherization assistance in the Northwest. The region's utilities and Bonneville provided about 40 percent ($7 million) of these funds. Also in 1995, approximately $39 million was provided for bill payment assistance of some type. The region's utilities provided about 40 percent ($16 million) of this assistance, with all of the remaining funds coming from federal sources.

In recent years, there has been a substantial reduction in the level of federal contribution to these programs. For example, federal funding of Low-income Heating Energy Assistance Program in Washington State was reduced by 42 percent between 1994 and 1995. State and utility contributions have not been increased to offset the reduction in federal funding.

Recommendations

To ensure that cost-effective conservation, renewable resource development and low-income weatherization are sustained during the transition to competition and beyond, the Steering Committee recommends that, by July 1, 1997, 3 percent of the revenues from the sale of electricity services in the region be dedicated in aggregate over the region to those purposes for a period of 10 years. The Committee believes that it is appropriate to re-evaluate this commitment at the end of the ten year period. Based on 1995 revenues, this amounts to approximately $210 million per year. This $210 million is 65 percent of what was spent for these purposes in 1995 by the region's utilities and Bonneville.

The Steering Committee recommends that by July 1, 1999, each Northwest state adopt legislation that ensures that all electric utilities operating within its borders are contributing to the development of conservation and renewable resources and providing weatherization and energy-efficiency services to low-income consumers. The legislation should set forth a minimum standard for retail distribution utility investments in conservation and renewable resources and the provision of weatherization and energy-efficiency services to low-income consumers. If by July 1, 1999, this minimum standard is not otherwise being met, the states should provide for the assessment of a uniform system benefits charge that ensures the collection and investment of funds for these purposes. Due to the rapid emergence of competitive pressures, the Steering Committee strongly recommends prompt legislative action.

The Steering Committee believes that the majority of these funds are most appropriately used at the local level. Consequently, as much as five-sixths of the funds could be retained by local distribution utilities to carry out locally initiated programs to develop cost-effective conservation, increase the use of renewable resources and provide low-income weatherization and energy-efficiency services. The Steering Committee also believes that retail distribution utilities should have the option of supporting the use of renewable resources through local initiatives. Local distribution utilities, to the extent they chose to exercise the option to develop renewable resources or provide incentives for renewable resource marketing, will be able to retain the greatest proportion of these funds.

Some conservation and renewable resource activities may, however, benefit from regional planning and coordination. The Steering Committee recommends that between one-sixth nor and one-third of the funds be used by a regional non-profit agency with consumer, utility, government and public interest membership. Its functions would be to bring about changes in the markets for targeted energy-efficiency and renewable resource products and services that will improve their market share; to plan and contract for research and limited demonstration of renewable energy technologies; and to support the development of renewable generating capacity. The approximate allocation of funds to different purposes is shown in Table 1.

A Regional Technical Forum would be established to develop standardized protocols for verification and evaluation of energy savings, to track regional progress toward the achievement of the region's conservation and renewable resource goals and to provide feedback and suggestions for improving the effectiveness of conservation and renewable resource development programs in the region. The Steering Committee's specific recommendations are described in detail in the following sections.

Conservation

Conservation was divided into two areas for action: local and regional conservation. Local conservation covers those actions designed to influence on-site consumer efficiency choices. Local conservation also includes low-income weatherization activities. Regional actions include the establishment of a regional technical forum and a non-profit entity to carry out conservation market transformation.

Local Conservation, Including Low-Income Weatherization

The Steering Committee recommends that the region's retail distribution utilities allocate at least 2 percent of the revenues from sales of electricity and distribution services toward the development of cost-effective conservation and low-income weatherization and energy-efficiency services for the next 10 years. This investment would be approximately $140 million per year based on 1995 revenues. The Steering Committee also recommends that approximately 52 percent (roughly $110 million per year) be allocated to local conservation investments and that 14 percent (about $30 million per year) be allocated for local investments in low-income weatherization in the region. Customers that use large amounts of electricity should be credited for documented cost-effective conservation investments made in their facilities. Such credits should not include their contribution to regional market transformation and renewable resource research and demonstration efforts and low-income weatherization and energy-efficiency service costs. The Steering Committee recommends that local conservation efforts and low-income weatherization funding be provided through direct contributions from the region's retail distribution utilities. Similar to the new Bonneville/State agreement, utilities are encourage to use the existing state/local agency low-income weatherization system as a means of accomplishing this work to avoid duplication.

Table 1. Annual Allocation of Funds to Conservation, Renewable Resources and Low-Income Energy Services

Purpose Percent of electricity revenues Percent of public purpose funding $ Millions based on 1995 revenues
Local Conservation 1.6% 52% $110
Low-Income Weatherization 0.4% 14% $30
New Renewable Resources 0.0% - 0.49% 0.0% - 16% $0 - $34
Total — Local Administration and Implementation 2.0% - 2.49% 67% - 83% $140 - $174
Conservation Market Transformation 0.43% 14% $30
Renewable Resource Market Transformation

New Renewable Resources
[Retail distribution utilities may dedicate their share of these funds to acquiring renewable resources through locally initiated programs.]

 0% - 0.49% 0% - 16% $0 - $34
Renewable Resource Research 0.01% >1% $1
Renewables Development and Demonstration 0.07% 2% $5
Total — Regional Administration and Implementation 0.52 % - 1.0% 17% - 33% $36 - $70
Total 3.0% 100% $210

For purposes of tracking regional progress on conservation and low-income weatherization, the Steering Committee recommends that all retail distribution utilities and state and local low-income weatherization service providers adopt and publish an annual report of their conservation and low-income weatherization achievements. This report should identify at least the amount of conservation achieved by economic sector, the number of dwellings occupied by low-income households that were weatherized and level of utility investment in these areas. The Committee also recommends that utilities make this report available to the non-profit entity established to carry out regional market transformation for conservation and renewable resources so that regional efforts can be effectively and efficiently coordinated with local efforts.

Regional Technical Forum

The Steering Committee recommends the formation of a Regional Technical Forum. The Congress directed Bonneville and the Northwest Power Planning Council to establish a forum to develop standardized protocols for verifying and evaluating conservation savings. The Steering Committee recommends that in addition to the charge given it by Congress the Regional Technical Forum should also track progress toward achievement of the region's goals for conservation and renewable resource development and provide feedback and suggestions for improving the effectiveness of conservation and renewable resource development programs. The Regional Technical Forum should conduct periodic reviews of the region's progress toward meeting its conservation and renewable resource goals at least every five years. These periodic reviews should acknowledge changes in the market. Any recommended changes for improving the effectiveness of conservation and renewable resource programs should be communicated to the appropriate decision-makers. The Regional Technical Forum should be composed of representatives of utilities, other electricity service providers, government and public interest groups.

Market Transformation

The Steering Committee calls for the region's retail distribution utilities to mount a coordinated effort to transform markets for efficient technologies and practices. The intent of market transformation is to undertake activities that will increase the market share of targeted efficiency products and services that will be sustained after incentives or other support are withdrawn. A successful example is the effort to improve the efficiency of manufactured housing in the Northwest. Utilities initially paid significant incentives for the construction of very efficient manufactured homes. As a consequence, the demand for such homes was so great that it was possible to remove the incentives while still capturing a high percentage of the market.

Because markets invariably cut across utility and jurisdictional boundaries, it makes most sense to pursue these efforts regionally. This effort should establish a non-profit organization to manage conservation market transformation ventures for the region. This organization's governing body should consist of consumer, utility, government and public interest representatives. This organization should have a planned life of at least 10 years in recognition of the time required to permanently transform markets and the range of markets or end-uses to be targeted. The recent formation of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, whose initial funding is coming from approximately equal contributions by Bonneville customers through Bonneville's rates and the region's investor-owned utilities, appears to be consistent with the Steering Committee's recommendations. The Steering Committee believes that approximately 0.43 percent of retail distribution utility revenues (approximately $30 million per year in 1995) should be allocated for conservation market transformation. [ Bonneville currently funds publicly-owned utilities' shares of the regional conservation market transformation effort. After 2001, funding for conservation market transformation, renewable research and development, and direct application renewables should be collected through Bonneville rates in proportion to the share of regional firm loads that are served by federal resources. Investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities and direct service industrial customers whose regional firm loads are served in whole or in part from resources other than direct or indirect federal purchases would fund the remainder independently.]

Renewable Resources

The Steering Committee considered a range of options for meeting its goal for developing renewable resources in the region. The Committee's recommendations for renewable resources are described below.

Existing Renewable Resource Projects

The Steering Committee calls for the sponsors to complete the current wind and geothermal demonstration and pilot projects. Funding these projects is the responsibility of the respective project sponsors and is not included as part of the revenues to be committed to the development of new renewable resources.

New Renewable Resource Projects

The Steering Committee also recommends that renewable resource market transformation activities be planned and carried out by the newly established non-profit entity charged with conservation market transformation. Alternatively, retail distribution utilities may dedicate the equivalent of their share of the regional renewable resource market transformation funds to locally initiated programs. Such funds should be earmarked toward defraying the above-market costs of renewable resources. Among many options, the utility could use its share of the funds to provide incentives for "green marketing" programs (i.e., the sale of power from qualifying renewable resources), acquire renewable resources or have marketers bid to leverage the utility's share to yield the greatest value for its customers. Whether regionally sponsored or locally initiated, renewable resource market transformation activities should focus initially on the development of new renewable resource technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric (outside of protected areas as defined by the Council, and other federal or state agencies and statutes) and low-emission organic, non-toxic biomass. Depending on the success of green marketing to consumers in the region, additional renewable resource development may occur. The Steering Committee recommends that approximately 0.49 percent (approximately $34 million per year based on 1995 revenues) of the region's retail revenues be invested annually to facilitate renewable resource market transformation. The Steering Committee believes that utilities should be permitted to invest renewable resource funds with Bonneville in order for the agency to make new renewable resource purchases on their behalf.

Renewable Resource Research, Development and Demonstration

The Steering Committee recommends that the region's retail distribution utilities to allocate approximately $1 million per year for research, and $5 million per year for development and demonstration of distributed renewable resources. These funds would be used by the non-profit entity established to carry out market transformation for conservation and research, development and demonstration of renewable resources.

"Green Marketing"

The Steering Committee recommends that retail distribution utilities should provide for so-called green marketing to individual consumers in advance of full retail open access. Retail distribution utilities may accomplish this by offering their retail consumers renewable resources or by permitting other energy service providers to sell renewable resources to their retail consumers.

Low-Income Energy Assistance

The Steering Committee recognizes and affirms the energy system's historic role in providing energy assistance to low-income consumers. The Steering Committee calls for utilities to maintain their current level of low-income energy assistance until such time as states adopt alternate mechanisms for providing these services. These alternatives should ensure that electricity prices are as low as possible and that energy-efficiency and consumer services, such as level payment mechanisms, remain in place until they are supplanted by other approaches. The Committee further recommends that states now ensure this assistance by establishing a Universal Electrical Service Fund. This fund could be supported by federal Low-Income Heating Energy Assistance Program funds, state or local government funds, other funds and/or by a retail distribution system access fee or meters charge, Qualified low-income (i.e., incomes 125 percent or less of the federal poverty level) customers would be entitled to receive from all electricity suppliers the bill assistance or rate discount needed to ensure that they do not pay more than a fixed proportion (e.g., 5 percent) of their income for electric energy services. All electricity suppliers could draw from the Universal Electrical Service Fund to provide the bill assistance needed to serve each qualified low-income customer, plus a standard administrative cost. Existing retail distribution utility low-income energy assistance program expenditures should be credited toward any required contributions to the Universal Electrical Service Fund.

Collecting and Allocating the Funds

The Steering Committee believes that a new mechanism is needed to ensure adequate and stable funding for conservation, renewable resources and low-income energy-efficiency services. This mechanism must be compatible and consistent with a competitive market. The committee recommends that before July 1, 1999, each Northwest state enact legislation that: [ Only a portion of the State of Montana falls within the region. This presents a unique situation that may require that state legislation enacted to implement the Steering Committee recommendations in Montana be structured differently.]

  1. Establishes a minimum standard for electric distribution utility investments in conservation, renewable resources and the provision of weatherization and energy-efficiency services for low-income consumers. This standard should apply equally to publicly owned and investor-owned utilities.
  2. Determines the minimum annual investment per state based on a total regional investment target of 3 percent of regional electrical service revenues (estimated to be $210 million in 1995). The Steering Committee acknowledges that a revenue-based approach to allocating collection of these funds will be inequitable in some instances, for example, in high distribution cost/low density systems. In such instances, alternative approaches may be employed provided that the overall minimum investment target is met. Investor-owned utilities, direct service industrial customers and public utilities as groups should allocate their investments according to Table 1, above.
  3. Permits each distribution utility to determine how it collects revenues sufficient to meet this minimum standard in accordance with its existing regulatory structure, while recommending that allocations be based on cost of service standards.
  4. Requires that utilities demonstrate compliance with the minimum investment standard on or before July 1, 1999, and annually thereafter. Individual publicly owned utilities should be provided the option of demonstrating compliance with the minimum investment standard "in the aggregate" by participating in collaborative/consortia efforts with other utilities. States should establish mechanisms to determine utility compliance with the minimum investment standard.
  5. Authorizes the imposition of a non-bypassable, local distribution system access charge (meter fee) on customers served by any distribution utility that fails to demonstrate compliance with the minimum investment standard. This fee should collect revenue equivalent to that distribution utility's minimum standard for annual investment in conservation, renewable resources and the provision of weatherization and energy-efficiency services for low-income consumers.

The Steering committee recommends that legislation establishing the minimum requirements set forth above should be implemented simultaneously with legislation implementing open retail access. The timing and details of the implementation of these recommendations should be directly linked to the timing and details of implementing the open retail access recommendations in the following section.

The Steering Committee is concerned that, due to competitive pressures, utility investments in conservation, renewable resources and low-income weatherization and energy-efficiency services are being reduced. To ensure a smooth transition and provide an early indication of potential problems, the Committee recommends that by July 1, 1997, each utility provide evidence that it will thereafter meet the minimum standard described above. Evidence could take the form of state statutes; tariff, rate or other filings; adoption of rate ordinances; budget resolutions by the utility's governing board; or other affidavits that specify the funding level to be dedicated to these purposes. If utilities representing at least 90 percent of the regional end-use loads do not provide such evidence by July 1, 1997, then the Steering Committee recommends that the region seek federal backup to take effect July 1, 1999.

The Steering Committee makes no recommendations as to how individual utilities should collect the funds — whether through a charge based on volume of kilowatt-hours sold, through a distribution access charge that is independent of or less directly related to kilowatt-hour sales, or some other method. The Steering Committee believes that the region should rely on the appropriate regulatory bodies to establish methods of collection. However, the Steering Committee is mindful of the fact that how the charge is collected can have effects on both equity among customers and the competitive balance among different suppliers or fuels. The Committee is also aware that significant differences in how the charge is collected can alter the competitive balance among retail distribution systems. The Steering Committee believes that regulatory bodies will find it preferable to collect these charges in ways that do not distort competitive balance.

The Bonneville Power Administration's Energy-efficiency Services

Due to controversy regarding the proposed scope of Bonneville's Energy Services Business (ESB), Congress has asked the Comprehensive Review Steering Committee to address the competitive implications of ESB activities; the appropriate level of capitalization for these activities; and provisions to minimize cross-subsidies from power marketing and transmission revenues.

By way of background, Bonneville has proposed that its future energy-efficiency efforts be comprised of three elements:

  1. Declining support for its historical ("legacy") programs.
  2. upport for regional market transformation efforts.
  3. Market development" activities designed to augment the market for energy-efficiency services, particularly in federal facilities and through bilateral contracts with its wholesale power customers.

Currently, these activities are grouped together as energy services. The first two activities are not at issue. The market development activities have raised two primary concerns:

  1. The original proposal for an Energy Services Business included a variety of activities that were perceived to put Bonneville in competition with private sector energy-efficiency business in a finite market.
  2. Various parties were skeptical that the market development activities could be self-supporting, particularly to the extent that safeguards were put in place to prevent Bonneville from competing with private energy-efficiency providers.

To resolve the first of these concerns, Bonneville worked extensively with the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council (a trade organization representing energy-efficiency businesses) and other regional parties to develop principles that would focus Bonneville's market development activities on increasing the market for privately-delivered energy services, rather than competing in that market. In the following recommendations the Steering Committee expands upon those principles.

To respond to the second concern, the Committee proposes to limit Bonneville's net spending and capital borrowing during Fiscal Years 1997 - 2001 to levels substantially below Bonneville's October 31, 1996 proposal. The Committee has concerns about Bonneville's ability to control costs in the long run. However, the Steering Committee has neither the time nor the inclination to micro-manage Bonneville's staffing and accounting methodologies. Rather, the Committee proposes to resolve these concerns by putting tight limits on Bonneville's net expenditures on this activity.

Recommendations

  1. Bonneville's energy-efficiency activities are not a "business." The purpose of these activities is to serve Bonneville's statutory directive to promote cost-effective energy-efficiency investments. The Committees consider it unlikely that these activities will completely recover their costs without unduly competing with private enterprises. To address concerns about the net cost of these activities, the Committee proposes borrowing and spending caps in items 11 and 12 below.
  2. Bonneville's role in market development should be structured and managed to enlarge energy-efficiency markets beyond that which is being profitably captured by private business.
  3. Bonneville's market development activities should be limited to markets or individual situations that are not currently accessible, viable, or profitable for the private sector energy-efficiency industry.
  4. Bonneville's market development activities should be designed and implemented to take full advantage of private sector energy goods and services. These activities should not favor one competitor over another.
  5. Bonneville will act primarily as a facilitator/aggregator of transactions for services provided by its partners.
  6. Specific Bonneville market development activities will be discontinued when they become viable and profitable for the private sector energy-efficiency business.
  7. An advisory board should be established immediately to monitor Bonneville's compliance with these restrictions. The advisory board should consist, among others, of private businesses that could be adversely affected by Bonneville's failure to comply with these restrictions, as well as power and transmission customers. Bonneville should consult with and report to this board at regular intervals, and the board should report concerns to the Northwest Power Planning Council.
  8. Bonneville's market development activities should be limited to its regional power sales contact customers and federal agencies. Bonneville should provide energy-efficiency services for federal agencies in cooperation with the serving utility or when the serving utility cannot or elects not to provide those services itself.
  9. Agencies and customers contracting for market development services should repay the full cost of those services, including repayment of loans at the appropriate U.S. Treasury rate.
  10. Any Bonneville organizational unit or activity currently named "Energy Services" should be renamed "Energy Efficiency." This is intended to clarify that previous proposals to undertake a broad spectrum of other retail services have been dropped, and to preclude Bonneville support for load-building activities that are inconsistent with Bonneville's conservation directives.
  11. Bonneville's use of U.S. Treasury capital should be limited to $5 million per year and restricted to federal projects. This represents a reduction of roughly 50 percent relative to Bonneville's October 31, 1996 proposal, and a reduction of $71 million relative to the final rate case figure. Capital borrowed from the U.S. Treasury should be repaid in full by the participating federal entity. All third party borrowing shall be non-recourse to Bonneville.
  12. Bonneville's net costs for market development activities should not exceed $8 million for the Fiscal Years 1997-2001. Bonneville's energy-efficiency activities should be self-supporting by September 30, 1999 or these activities should be terminated.
  13. Bonneville should revise its October 1995 record of decision for firm non-requirements products and services contracts by replacing the "Energy Services" section with an "Energy-Efficiency" section that incorporates a final plan for energy-efficiency activities consistent with the restrictions herein. The energy-efficiency plan should not include activities listed in the original Record of Decision "Energy Services" section except those directly related to energy-efficiency. Other new activities listed in the original Record of Decision "Energy Services" section should not be offered by any part of Bonneville in competition with the private sector.

CONSUMER ACCESS TO THE COMPETITIVE MARKET — ENSURING THE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION FOR ALL

Goals

The goals of the Comprehensive Review Steering Committee recommendations on retail markets and consumer choice are to encourage a more efficient power system, lower electricity costs, increased product choice and greater product innovation for all consumers. These goals were adopted subject to a commitment to maintain the reliability and safety of the electrical power system. The Steering Committee concluded that these goals could best be accomplished by putting in place a competitive electricity market driven by consumer choice. This section describes the background of facts and trends that led to this decision, then describes the recommended vision of a competitive retail electricity market driven by consumer choice, and finally lays out several steps that should be taken to accomplish a transition to this competitive market by July 1, 1999.

Background

The Steering Committee's decisions about competition and consumer choice in retail electricity markets were made in the context of the changes already occurring in regulation, legislation, and electricity markets themselves. The changes that affect retail markets are more recent than the changes in wholesale markets, but they are a natural extension of those changes. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order 888 will force open wholesale markets for electric power, but it left decisions about retail electricity markets to the states.

During the past year, most states have initiated processes to address the question of retail competition. A variety of conclusions have been reached. Some states, such as California, have established schedules and passed legislation for moving to retail competition. Others, such as New Hampshire and Illinois, have developed pilot programs to test the feasibility of retail competition in electricity. Others have allowed retail wheeling rates for large consumers on a case-by-case basis. There is enough action at the state level on retail competition to establish a perception of tremendous momentum toward a more competitive retail electricity market. "It's inevitable," was a phrase heard often during the Comprehensive Review process.

In spite of the high level of state activity in this area, or perhaps because of the uneven progress by states, national legislation has been introduced to require retail competition in electricity markets nationwide. Colorado Representative Dan Schaefer introduced a bill entitled "The Electricity Consumers' Power to Choose Act". This bill would give all consumers the right to choose their electric service provider by December 2000. A similar bill, the "Electric Power Competition Act of 1996," has been introduced by Massachusetts Representative Edward Markey.

The strong momentum toward retail competition reflects the current feasibility of some large consumers acquiring their own electricity supplies in the wholesale market. Prices of wholesale power often are below the price industries are paying their local utility and the potential savings are an important factor in businesses' bottom lines. Large users are quick to point out that they buy almost nothing at retail except for electricity. Similarly, power marketers are anxious to provide power and services to large consumers. Both energy marketing companies and large users support more open retail power markets.

Opening up retail markets only to large users, however, is highly controversial and would, in all likelihood, limit the potential benefits that could be gained from more active competition. The major concern is that additional costs would fall on small captive customers as a result of large consumers acquiring their electricity elsewhere and leaving stranded costs behind. Without some agreement on how to recover stranded costs, there is a clear temptation to pass those costs on to captive customers.

The surest way to prevent shifting of costs to small captive customers is to free them to acquire their power supplies from alternative sources, just like the large consumers. When consumers have choice among electricity suppliers it is very difficult to subsidize other consumers at their expense. However, unlike the wholesale market, there is currently no well developed competitive retail electricity market. There are many important issues to be addressed and several technical problems to be solved before a widely available retail electricity market can be developed.

One of the major concerns raised is that of continued universal service at affordable prices. Reliable electricity supplies are a fundamental component of modern lifestyles and public safety. Some are concerned that few competitive electricity suppliers will come forth to serve small consumers, especially low-income consumers, at affordable rates. There may be increased need for consumer protection standards and information and education to help consumers make decisions about a product that is invisible, but essential to modern life. Some form of oversight may be needed to ensure a truly competitive retail market and to keep separate the regulated and competitive portions of the electricity system. In addition, more sophisticated billing and metering systems will be needed to keep track of the vastly increased number of participants in the market.

Some of these problems are best solved by allowing the market the opportunity to develop. Others require government intervention and oversight. The Steering Committee recommendation attempts to balance these two categories of need by allowing the market to develop while, at the same time, specifying solutions to important social concerns that arise with retail competition and setting an ambitious target to achieving full retail competition.

Recommendation

The Steering Committee recommends that beginning no later than July 1, 1999, all retail distribution utilities offer open retail market access for those customers that desire direct market access. The committee recognizes that states, regulatory agencies, or retail distribution utility governing bodies may authorize plans that provide a transition or phase-in to full retail market access. In these specific cases, that may result in a similar transition or phase-in of the full implementation of the public purpose recommendations that are linked to the open access recommendation.

Direct access may occur prior to July 1, 1999. However, it is recommended that in order to provide for direct retail access on the schedule in this report, several activities must be accomplished promptly. These include the identification of any stranded costs and, if any stranded costs are determined to exist, the creation of a stranded cost collection mechanism that does not cause cost shifting; resolution of any outstanding contractual issues; unbundling and cost-based pricing of electricity delivery services; pilot programs to explore aggregation for small commercial and residential consumers; the exploration of market index pricing options for residential and small commercial consumers; and implementation of public purposes funding, energy assistance funding and consumer protection mechanisms consistent with this report's recommendations.

The implications of this statement are far reaching. It will completely change the structure of the retail electricity market. It implies significant actions not only by utilities, but by state legislatures, regulators, and local governing boards of publicly-owned utilities. These recommendations are offered with the intent of aiding the appropriate regulatory bodies as they address these issues.

For consumers to have real choices in electricity supply, they must have unimpeded access to alternative electric service providers. Similarly, new energy service providers must have access to consumers through the local distribution system on a non-discriminatory basis with no advantage to the incumbent utility. The only way to effectively ensure these conditions are in place is to require division of the incumbent utility into two separate business lines; one a regulated electricity distribution utility and the other an electricity service company that competes on an equal basis with other energy service providers. The Steering Committee concluded that legal divestiture of the energy services component is not required, given that adequate regulatory safeguards are in place to assure independence of the two businesses. Some companies may find it advantageous to legally separate, but the Steering Committee recommendation does not require it.

Electricity distribution utilities

The electricity distribution utility formed by separating utility functions will be a regulated monopoly responsible for the safe and reliable delivery of electricity over the network of local distribution wires. This utility will have an obligation to connect any consumer to the electricity grid, but will not ultimately be responsible for acquiring the electricity that it delivers. The distribution utility will provide open and non-discriminatory access to the local distribution grid to any electricity supplier. The distribution utility may be the point of collection of funds to support public purposes, such as conservation, renewable resources, stranded cost recovery, and low-income weatherization and bill support. Initially, the distribution utility may provide metering and billing services on an unbundled basis; that is, with the separate components of the electricity costs itemized. However, metering and billing may ultimately become a separate competitively provided service.

Electricity service companies

The remainder of the current retail electric utility, after separation from the distribution business, will compete with other electricity service providers to serve end-use consumers. This company will offer a variety of electricity products and services to consumers in an effort to win as many customers as possible, or as suits its business strategy. It may rebundle such separate products and services as bulk electricity supply, transmission, shaping to load patterns, maintenance of reserves, and distribution. The transmission and distribution would be acquired from the regulated utilities that provide such services, while the electricity generation, shaping and reserves may be bought in the competitive power generation markets or supplied from plants the company owns. The electricity service company will probably utilize various financial derivatives to provide risk mitigation services, such as fixed-price products. It may not have any defined service territory or be limited to only one line of business. It may offer natural gas, oil, energy-efficiency services, and even cable television along with its electricity products. Due to the nature of electricity, the electricity service company will probably be licensed by state or local authorities and be subject to consumer protection standards. The Steering Committee recommended that the Bonneville Power Administration, the region's federal power marketing agency, not compete in this competitive retail energy services business.

Policies for structuring competition

The Steering Committee developed a number of guidelines for state and local policy-makers to implement in order to be ready for retail competition by July 1, 1999. These were referred to as market maintenance procedures because they are intended to facilitate the efficient and fair operation of a competitive retail electricity market. Many of these guidelines are concerned with putting consistent requirements in place for all market participants.

Registration and licensing standards

Consistent registration or licensing standards should be established for all market participants sufficient to protect consumers and the delivery infrastructure from abuse. Regulators or local agencies should be equipped with the authority to correct abuses should they occur, by reviewing and revoking licenses or by assessing financial penalties.

All market participants serving residential and small commercial consumers should fall fully within the jurisdiction of state consumer protection laws and regulations. Consumer protection legislation and regulations should be adopted or applied to address issues including, but not limited to, credit terms, disconnection of service, standardized billing information, redlining and discriminatory pricing, unfair trade practices and fraud, service quality, and consumer privacy.

Electricity bills

Standardized information should be available on monthly bills, or other appropriate media, which would convey information about the provider's resource portfolio, environmental characteristics of that portfolio and a consumer satisfaction index. If itemized costs appear on consumer bills, disclosure should be complete, not partial. For example, charges for stranded cost recovery, transmission, distribution, low-income assistance, generation by type, demand-side management, and renewables should be included. Energy bills should include a place for the consumer to lodge complaints concerning service abuse. A neutral resolution mechanism for disputes between consumers and their energy service providers should be established within regulatory bodies or local agencies.

Balanced competition

Policies should be established to ensure that competition among established power providers and new market entrants is based on the value of services and products provided to the consumers and not on variations in the regulatory or market requirements faced by these categories of retail service providers. Consistency should be established among market participants in access to consumers, responsibilities for protection of consumers and for maintenance of a competitive market (open access, service obligation, product labeling, etc.). To the degree possible, regionally consistent policies concerning meters charges should be established. Similarly, where the commercial transactions of established providers are taxed, the transactions of new entrants should be equally burdened.

Clarify regulatory authority

The restructuring of the retail electricity market will necessitate some changes to established government responsibilities relating to the electricity industry. The relationship between state or local utility regulatory agencies and state consumer protection agencies and laws needs to be clarified, or, if necessary, new institutions may need to be established. Responsibility for low-income assistance for electricity bills and the funding of that assistance needs to be decided. The relationship between federal regulatory authority and state and local regulatory authority to accomplish public policies (through the use of meters charges, local distribution charges, or other means) and to oversee the competitive market for retail services should be clarified.

Incentives for reliability and efficient use of local distribution systems

Distribution system charges will remain regulated to ensure reliability, efficiency and appropriate cost allocation. Local distribution and delivery services should be priced and regulated in a manner that fosters reliability and the efficient use and expansion of the facilities.

Transitional Steps

The Steering Committee identified a number of transitional steps that should be taken to help complete the development of a competitive retail market by July 1, 1999. State legislatures, regulators, local governing boards and utilities should begin to implement these steps as soon as possible. To the extent possible, decisions and actions by public policy makers during the transition should not create an advantage or impose a disadvantage on any group of competitors, nor preclude later actions to enable the development of efficient markets.

Unbundled billing

Consumers' electricity bills currently show one price for delivered electricity. The various components of the cost are not identified, that is, the components are bundled into one charge. These components may include, among others, bulk electricity supply, shaping services, reliability reserves, transmission, local distribution, and conservation program costs. Consumers will be better educated about electricity services and better prepared to make separate decisions about some of these products and services in the future if they begin to see the separate components on their bills now. Therefore, utilities should begin to unbundle, that is, itemize, the components of consumers bills for informational purposes in preparation for separate pricing in the future.

Separation of local distribution from electricity services

Utilities should reorganize their companies to functionally separate local distribution service from retail electricity services. Separate accounting systems should be developed in preparation for the side-by-side, but independent, existence of a regulated distribution utility and a competitive retail electricity service company. Full legal separation of the two functions is not required as long as regulators and local governing boards put in place the necessary safeguards to prevent utilities from using their monopoly positions in distribution to influence their market positions in the competitive electricity services business.

Provide open transmission system access as soon as possible

Utilities, working with their regulators or local governing boards, should provide open and non-discriminatory access to the local electricity distribution system as soon as possible. Utilities should develop open access tariffs for this purpose. Making such services available will help the competitive electricity services business develop and will provide early identification of any problems associated with operating in an open access retail market environment. The lessons learned will feed into the more formal restructuring process and help ensure its successful implementation.

Modify distribution utility service obligations

Most utilities currently have a regulatory obligation to serve, that is provide retail electricity services to all consumers in their service territory. In the market envisioned by the Steering Committee, such an obligation is inconsistent. Instead, the distribution utility should have an obligation to connect all consumers to the electricity services market through their distribution system. Neither the distribution utility, nor its affiliated electricity service company, will have any special obligation to provide electricity supplies and services to consumers in the restructured electricity market. Regulators and local governing boards need to alter the utility service obligation requirements to be consistent with a competitive electricity services market.

Promote development of retail electricity service providers

To effectively serve all types of consumers, it is important to gain experience in competitive retail electricity markets and to put in place conditions that encourage its development. In addition to the unbundling and open access tariffs described above, state legislatures and regulators are encouraged to establish an orderly transition to direct access to competitive retail electric service markets. An orderly transition would facilitate the market's development while ensuring that all consumer classes benefit and that unwarranted cost shifting is prevented. Particular concern exists for the small consumer. Pilot programs should be designed and implemented to encourage the development of aggregators who can provide competitively priced power for small consumers. States should recognize that effective competition may not materialize in all market segments. They should be prepared to consider alternative means to address this problem when it occurs, including, but not limited to, authorizing local units of government to aggregate small consumers.

A "green" power marketing program should be developed to introduce varied products to consumers and to provide an opportunity for renewable resources to compete in the retail electricity market based on their environmental characteristics and price.

Finally, a provider-of-last-resortmechanism should be maintained to accommodate those who cannot choose a supplier or for whom no suppliers materialize. Such a mechanism could include a last-resort supplier of energy at affordable rates, or could be a system of random assignment of electricity service providers to consumers who have not been able to effectively access the market.

Opportunity to recover stranded costs

Opening up the retail electricity market to competition raises the possibility that some utility costs become stranded; that is, a utility may not be able to recover the full costs of some previously rate-based assets. To the extent that stranded costs are a problem, utilities may resist competition and may attempt to shift stranded costs onto captive customers. To facilitate the transition and reduce cost shifting incentives, utilities should be given a fair opportunity to recover legitimate, non-mitigable stranded costs. Any policies on stranded cost recovery should preserve a strong incentive for utilities to mitigate stranded costs to the greatest extent possible. Recovery of non-mitigable stranded costs may be accomplished through exit fees or distribution access fees. However, it should be clear that stranded costs are transitional in nature and recovery provisions should be limited in duration and amount recovered.

TRANSMISSION — OPEN-ACCESS HIGHWAY FOR COMPETITION IN GENERATION

Goals

The primary goal of the Steering Committee's recommendations for transmission is a transmission system whose structure and operation help ensure a fully competitive generation market. The recommendations are also designed to improve the efficiency of use of the transmission system and to maintain the system's reliability as the pressures of competition on utilities increase.

Background

If consumers are to realize the benefits of competition in the generation of electricity, competitors in that market must have equal access to the transmission system. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has recognized the critical importance of equal access, as demonstrated in its Orders 888 and 889, and has indicated that its policy goal for transmission is to facilitate a fully competitive wholesale market for generated electricity. The Steering Committee expects FERC to move ahead with the definition of rules to make sure that all competitors have non-discriminatory access to the transmission system.

If a single party owns both transmission and generation, there is potential for the owner to increase the profits of its generation by limiting transmission access to competitors. That owner is also subject to competitive pressures that may serve as a disincentive to needed investments in transmission maintenance and expansion. These pressures may also encourage operating on the edge of reliability limits. To ensure equal access and reliability requires that decisions affecting transmission be effectively separated from decisions affecting generation. The necessary separation can be accomplished by the formation of a FERC-regulated independent grid operator, or independent grid operator (referred to in the FERC Order 888 as an independent system operator, or ISO) that is responsible for the operation of the transmission assets of multiple owners. Operating and charging for the use of these systems as a single system would also eliminate "pancaking" of transmission rates (paying a different rate to each transmission owner over whose system a power transaction is scheduled) and make possible more efficient operation.

Recommendations

The Steering Committee recommends the formation of an independent grid operator, regulated by FERC and including the transmission assets of the Bonneville Power Administration and other owners of major transmission assets in the region. Membership should be voluntary, but every effort should be made to enlist wide participation.

Independent Grid Operator Responsibilities

The Northwest's independent grid operator should have operational control over the transmission system and enough operational control of generation to ensure short-term reliability. The independent grid operator will also have responsibilities in other areas, such as maintenance, planning and expansion. The independent grid operator should have clear incentives to maintain reliability and encourage the efficient use of the system. The independent grid operator will necessarily follow FERC principles for independent system operators, and may include modifications agreed to by participants and approved by FERC. Load control centers could be maintained locally, if participants prefer. The Steering Committee recommends that intermittent, as-available and distributed generation should be treated fairly in buying and selling necessary ancillary services and the provision of transmission services, and that transmission planning should follow long-term least-cost planning principles.

Bonneville Power Administration

Since Bonneville's transmission facilities make up a large part of the regional transmission system, these facilities operational independence from Bonneville power marketing considerations is particularly important. Therefore, Bonneville's power marketing and transmission functions should be fully and legally separated (including separated funds). Bonneville's generation and transmission systems should be separated to promote competitive practices and to avoid the problem of self-dealing between the generation apparatus and the transmission system. This approach is consistent with the direction of federal energy restructuring policy being implemented around the country.

In addition, the Committee is aware that both generation and transmission are valuable federal assets and their revenues are currently collected for deposit in the Bonneville Power Administration Fund. Further, the Committee understands that the receipts to the Fund are now legally bound to meet Bonneville's financial obligations, which include payment of the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) bonds, other Bonneville financial obligations, and the agency's fish and wildlife mitigation and restoration requirements, as necessary. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that any separation of generation and transmission — whether by administrative or legislative means — be achieved in such a way that it does not jeopardize or diminish the legal obligation and ability of Bonneville to meet fish and wildlife and other obligations.

The resulting Bonneville Transmission Agency or Corporation should become a full participant in the independent grid operator. If other participants agree that the interests of the new Bonneville transmission entity have been sufficiently separated from the interests of power marketing, it could be the regional independent grid operator.

Legislation will be necessary to accomplish the separation of Bonneville's transmission and generation functions. Legislation should also subject Bonneville's transmission to FERC regulation that is equivalent to FERC regulation of investor-owned utilities.

Governance

The makeup of the independent grid operator governing board should follow FERC guidelines, which require that no individual market participant or class of market participants have the ability to control the independent grid operator. It could include owners and users, state and regional regulatory entities on an ex-officio basis (similar to the Northwest Regional Transmission Association and the Western Regional Transmission Association) and at least some independent outside representatives from the broader public, or it could be fully independent of owners and significant users.

Wheeling for Retail Loads

The independent grid operator, in providing wheeling for retail loads, would be governed by rules set out in FERC Order 888. These rules would allow such wheeling if it is authorized by the state or utility in which the retail load is located. The Steering Committee recommends that Bonneville honor the same rules until it becomes a participant in an independent grid operator.

Pricing of Transmission

Transmission pricing becomes increasingly important as the transmission system is used by more parties and transactions become more market-based. Some pricing practices used in the past would give users inappropriate signals for their use of transmission in the expected competitive environment of the future. Past pricing practices could also give inaccurate signals regarding the location of power resources and the expansion of transmission system capacity. These issues are being addressed by both the Northwest and Western Regional Transmission Associations. The Steering Committee recommends that pricing of services provided by the independent grid operator, which will be subject to FERC regulation, should follow principles being developed through the regional transmission associations.

Transition Issues

During the period that the legislation is under consideration, Bonneville should move to accomplish as much separation of generation and transmission as is possible by administrative measures. In addition, Bonneville should participate in efforts to form an independent grid operator that could operate both federal and non-federal assets.

An independent grid operator should assist in facilitating a competitive power market for customers that take delivery of their power requirements at sub-transmission voltages over facilities they currently do not own. In the transition to an independent grid operator, Bonneville should work with these customers to ensure that fair pricing mechanisms, reasonable transition periods and opportunities for utilities to gain control over delivery facilities are available.

FUTURE POWER SYSTEM ROLE FOR A FOUR-STATE REGIONAL BODY

Background

When the Northwest Power Act was passed in 1980, the authors contemplated an extended period of electricity shortages. Many believed that the shortages could only be averted through the construction of increasingly costly, large-scale power plants. The participation of the federal Bonneville Power Administration was believed to be essential to the financing of these plants. As part of the bargain struck in return for this expansion of Bonneville's authority, the Northwest Power Act established the Northwest Power Planning Council. The Council, which is made up of two representatives of each of the governors of the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, was directed to further the following goals:

  • To encourage conservation and efficiency in the use of electric power;
  • To encourage the development of renewable resources;
  • To assure the region of an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply;
  • To provide for the participation and consultation of the states, local governments, consumers, customers, users of the Columbia River system and the public at large in:
    • the development of regional plans and programs related to energy conservation, renewable resources and other resources, and protecting, mitigating and enhancing fish and wildlife resources;
    • facilitating the orderly planning of the region's power system;
    • providing environmental quality; and
    • the protection, mitigation and enhancement of the fish and wildlife, and their habitat, of the Columbia River Basin.

The Power Planning Council has been credited with many improvements in electricity planning. However, in a competitive environment, market forces will play the primary role in determining when and what generating resources are built and what can be charged for their output. In such an environment, Bonneville will no longer play a central and key role in resource development and the Northwest Power Planning Council's regional planning and oversight of Bonneville's resource acquisitions are no longer relevant.

Future Roles

While the Council's power acquisition planning role is no longer relevant, the remaining goals of the Power Act are ones the Steering Committee believes are still important to the citizens of the region. The issue is how they are to be achieved in the context of a competitive market. The Steering Committee believes that moving to a competitive electricity industry can yield benefits and could, if properly structured, achieve many of those goals . There is, however, much that is unknown about the competitive future. How the transition to the competitive future is accomplished is of critical importance to achieving those goals and, more broadly, to the region's economic and environmental interests. As the Northwest moves toward a competitive electricity industry, there are roles that should be carried out by a regional body. These roles involve monitoring and analyzing the transition to a competitive market and informing regional policy-makers and the public. These roles are important if the transition is to be accomplished efficiently and fairly throughout the region and if the public values the Northwest has sought from its power system are to be protected. These roles do not include resource acquisition planning, regulation or implementation. After some period of development of the competitive market, certainly less than 10 years, the need for a continuing regional role should be re-evaluated. The transitional roles include the following:

Conservation and Renewable Resources

The recommendation for conservation and renewable resources relies heavily and appropriately on local action to overcome market barriers. In some instances, such market barriers are uniquely local. In others, however, barriers cut across local boundaries. Consequently, there remains a need for an entity like the Council to identify the barriers and work with regional interests and others to devise mechanisms to overcome them. The Council or a regional entity like the Council should also be an active participant in the non-profit entity established to carry out market transformation for conservation and renewables, both for its expertise and its unique regional perspective. The recommendation recognizes that there is value in providing guidance and suggesting standards for meeting the region's conservation and renewable resource goals. This is consistent with the Council's historic role and should be carried out by a regional body like the Council. Finally, the recommendation also recognizes the need for tracking and reporting progress regionwide. A regional body like the Council, working with power suppliers, industry, governments and public interest representatives in the context of the Regional Technical Forum recommended in an earlier chapter, is an appropriate way to accomplish these tasks.

The Competitive Marketplace

Competition will create a regional, and probably Westwide, electricity market. While an individual utility approach will remain important for regulation of the distribution function, much of the market activity will occur across utility and across state boundaries. There will be many new non-utility and non-regulated actors in this market. In addition, differences in market structure and rules among and within states can result in market friction and create opportunities for market participants to arbitrage these differences to the detriment of consumers and overall market efficiency. The development of the market should be monitored for potential problems of market power or structural market inefficiencies until the new structure is mature. Carrying out this monitoring, promoting information sharing and coordinating resolution of multistate issues is an appropriate role for a four-state regional body like the Council.

Included in this role is the need for some level of continued regional review of the Bonneville Power Administration. This recommendation should result in a less aggressive market role for Bonneville. Bonneville's administrator will, however, continue to have a great deal of discretion. While Bonneville is in a position to exercise significant market power, regional review of Bonneville and its market role is important.

Efficient functioning of the electricity market depends in large part on access to relevant information by all market participants. The Steering Committee is confident that as the market matures, mechanisms will develop to provide that information broadly. During the transition, however, access to such information is likely to be uneven. It would be desirable to have a regional body that provides information, evaluation and analysis relevant to the evolving marketplace to help the development of full, fair and effective competition throughout the region.

Efficient functioning of the competitive electricity market also depends on the efficient operation and expansion of the regional transmission system. As open access is put in place through the work of the regional transmission associations and during the creation and early operation of an independent grid operator, the Council's overall regional perspective will help to keep the transition on track toward its goal of an efficient market.

Finally, the competitive market has uncertain implications for the quality of our environment. For example, some are predicting significant increases in emissions as a result of competition. The effect of the competitive electricity market on key environmental indicators needs to be monitored and evaluated and, if necessary, policy-makers assisted in developing market-oriented corrective mechanisms. Although the Council should have no regulatory responsibility in this area, monitoring, analyzing and working with policy-makers are appropriate roles.

Public Participation and Involvement

One of the primary charges given the Northwest Power Planning Council under the Northwest Power Act was to facilitate public participation and involvement on issues related to electricity and fish and wildlife in the region. The Council has attempted to fulfill this charge by maintaining an extensive public information and public outreach program, both through its central offices and its offices in each of the Northwest states. In some respects, the competitive market will give consumers a much greater say in the electricity industry than they have had before. Nonetheless, a four-state body with the ability to inform and involve interested members of the public on matters that affect them, their environment and their economy across the region will continue to be of value.

Funding

The funding of the Northwest Power Planning Council has been through a charge on Bonneville Power Administration power rates. If federal legislation affecting the role of the Northwest Power Planning Council is pursued, the question of the level and sources of the Council's funding should be addressed.

APPENDIX A: DISSENTING OPINION

APPENDIX B: MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Field Guide

posted May 20, 2013

Click circled numbers

map of 4 projects

Field Guide

posted May 20, 2013

The Redfish Lake Captive Broodstock Program is working to restore Snake River sockeye salmon in the central mountains of Idaho in the Sawtooth National Recreation area.

Precipitous declines of Snake River sockeye salmon led to their federal listing as endangered in 1991. In that same year, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game began the captive brood program to preserve the existing population and prevent their extinction. The fish are unique because they are the only population of sockeye salmon in the Snake River drainage. They are distinguished in their toughness as well: They travel farther than any other North American sockeye population – 900 miles – to reach the ocean; they travel to the highest elevation; and they are the most southerly population of sockeye in North America.

redfish lake photo
Redfish Lake (photo by Lance Hebdon).
Click to enlarge.
 

The program produces eggs, juveniles, and adults for re-introduction to Stanley Basin waters, and uses adaptive management techniques in its operation to continuously monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Emphasis is placed on developing genetically diverse broodstocks each year using the region's best practices. Juvenile monitoring using PIT tag technology, adult return monitoring, and adult sonic telemetry studies provides critical information to evaluate the program's re-introduction strategies. The program's methods and results are also reviewed by a team of technical experts to determine the effectiveness of the work and to guide the program's direction. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the University of Idaho play a major role in this process, as well as in the on-the-ground work.

To date, the program has returned over 300 anadromous sockeye salmon to Idaho. In 1999, the first hatchery-produced sockeye salmon returned to the Stanley Basin. That year, seven adults returned to spawn. In 2000, the program experienced its first significant return of hatchery-produced adults. Two hundred fifty-seven sockeye salmon returned to collection facilities on Redfish Lake Creek and the upper Salmon River at the IDFG Sawtooth Fish Hatchery, and the majority of those adult returns were released to the system for natural spawning. In 2001, 26 hatchery-produced adults returned to collection facilities in Idaho, and in 2002, 21 hatchery-produced adults returned to the Stanley Basin.

The ultimate goal of the program is to re-establish sockeye salmon runs to Stanley Basin waters that will support both sport and treaty harvest opportunities. In the near-term, the program is focused on preventing further decreases to sockeye salmon populations, maintaining genetic diversity, and increasing species abundance.

Field Guide

posted May 20, 2013

The Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility in Washington is a one-of-a-kind research program and the premier supplementation research hatchery in the world.

The Cle Elum facility integrates its operations with the natural production of wild populations of fish. Begun in 1997 and sponsored by the Yakama Tribe, their goal is to boost the production of wild fish through supplementation techniques and to evaluate the program's long-term success.

cle elum facility photo
Cle Elum supplementation and research facility (photo
by Dave Fast). Click to enlarge.

The facility randomly collects adults from spawning wild spring chinook as they return to the Yakima River. The eggs are divided into two groups. One group is reared under standard best hatchery rearing practices, and the other group experiences what is called Semi Natural Treatment (SNT) – surroundings that mimic the natural environment such as camouflage paint on walls, overhead and instream cover, and underwater feeders.

The study will help to determine if rearing under more natural conditions increases the survival of young fish once they are released into the wild. The hatchery adults are expected to spawn in the wild to increase the natural production of spring chinook.

2001 was the first year that the hatchery fish returned, and the results were encouraging: the supplementation facility saw about seven times as many adult fish come back per hatchery spawner compared to the wild spawners. Research is now focusing on the spawning channel to determine the reproductive potential of the returning supplementation fish – a very important issue in order to evaluate the long-term success of the project. The ultimate goal is not only to see a large return of adults, but the successful reproduction of those fish into the next generation.

Field Guide

posted May 20, 2013

The Hungry Horse Mitigation Program, sponsored by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, began in 1992 to address fish losses associated with the construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam.

The Hungry Horse Dam isolated approximately 38 percent of the Flathead Lake drainage and changed the physical and biological characteristics of the lake and river. The program's goals are to restore and reconnect critical habitat, reduce the negative interactions between native and non-native fish, and improve dam operations for native trout recovery.

emery creek photo: before restoration
Emery Creek before (photo by Grant Grisak)

emery creek photo: after restoration
Emery Creek after restoration (photo by Gary
Michael). Click photos to enlarge.

The Flathead River system in northeast Montana is a regional stronghold for migrating westslope cutthroat trout, part of Montana's natural heritage. Installation of the dam completely blocked fish migrations from Flathead Lake to the South Fork Flathead River upstream. In order to improve fish passage to critical spawning and rearing habitat, the program initiated several culvert replacement projects. These combined projects re-opened 16 percent of the available spawning and rearing habitat to migratory fishes in the reservoir system, and monitoring surveys have shown significant increases in adult and juvenile fish upstream of each passage improvement site.

The program is also using innovative natural channel restoration techniques to improve native fish habitat throughout the upper Flathead River drainage. In one instance, improvements to Emery Creek included removing sections of a logging road that had distorted the natural meandering of the stream causing habitat degradation and creating barriers to fish migration. The improvements enhanced fish habitat and restored a two-mile section of channel to aid spawning native trout.

Dam operations had also created unnatural flow and temperature fluctuations in the Flathead River downstream of Hungry Horse Dam. In 1996, a temperature control structure was installed on the dam to correct the problem. It allows dam operators to take water from the appropriate depth in the reservoir so the water flowing through the dam turbines matches the natural, seasonal temperature pattern in the river. As a result, normal temperatures were restored in the Flathead River downstream of the dam which has helped to increase favorable stream and habitat conditions for fish.

Field Guide

posted May 20, 2013

The Northeast Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project began as an opportunity to return a parcel of canyon land in Wallowa County to its original owners, the Nez Perce Tribe, to manage as a wildlife preserve.

In the mid-1990s, the tribe, working with the Trust for Public Land, a non-profit organization dedicated to land preservation, purchased the Chief Joseph Ranch, a 10,300-acre parcel of land, to provide diverse habitat, native grasslands, and riparian stream bank habitat for the many kinds of wildlife living there. The project was designed to manage high quality canyon grassland to benefit targeted wildlife species, as well as Endangered Species Act-listed summer steelhead, and serves as partial mitigation for the wildlife losses attributed to the lower Snake River complex of dams.

photo: joseph canyon
Joseph Canyon from the east side (photo by Ron
Cronin). Click to enlarge.

The property's somewhat limited access, and the possibility of future land acquisitions, made it strategically attractive. Since the initial purchase of the ranch in 1996, the project has used land acquisition and management as a tool to improve habitat conditions for native species. All project lands lie within the lower Grande Ronde watershed and have a special significance for the Nez Perce Tribe. Until the arrival of white settlers, this rugged and lush country in northeastern Oregon was home to the Wallowa band of Nez Perce for thousands of years. The project represents the first land the tribe has owned in Wallowa County since the Nez Perce War in 1877. In a simple ceremony, on a rainy spring day, people gathered in Joseph Canyon to commemorate the historic return of the Nez Perce to their ancestral home. The blessing named the land in Nez Perce "Hetewisniix Wetes," or "Precious Land."

Currently, 15,359 acres have been purchased and are being managed in perpetuity for wildlife and watershed benefits. The project's goal is to ultimately obtain 16,500 acres of land. Approximately 14.6 miles of perennial streams are being managed to improve riparian habitat conditions to benefit wildlife and ESA-listed Snake River steelhead. Native plants are being restored through a combination of techniques, including removal of domestic livestock, noxious weed control, and the re-establishment of native species on disturbed sites. Additionally, 123 acres of low-productivity agricultural land will be converted back to native bunchgrasses, trees, and shrubs.

The overall goal of the project is to protect, restore, and manage the canyon land for the benefit of native species like elk, big horn sheep, quail, and other wildlife while protecting native vegetation and the watershed.

Field Guide

posted May 20, 2013

What is the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program?

The Council is charged by the 1980 Northwest Power Act to develop a program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin.

The four projects highlighted (see left) represent the variety of activities that are funded through the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

Many entities propose projects that help to implement the program, including federal and state agencies, tribal governments, universities, local watershed groups, and private landowners. The Council recommends projects for funding to the Bonneville Power Administration, which currently directs approximately $150 million annually to over 200 projects throughout the basin. See our Fish and Wildlife Program page for more.

Independent scientific review: a cornerstone of sound decision-making

Critical to the Council's funding recommendation decisions is the role of independent science review. All projects funded under the Council's Program are required through the Power Act to undergo review by an independent science panel.

Panel members are chosen based on recommendations from the National Research Council. The program also uses a second, related panel of scientists to provide advice to the region on key scientific issues.

Independent scientific review is an established tradition in research and development programs in the United States and much of the world. Such reviews help decisionmakers separate scientific variables from other political, economic, and cultural considerations to help ensure that environmental decisionmaking reflects the best scientific knowledge of the day.

The Columbia River Basin Field Guide

posted May 20, 2013


map of columbia river basin
The Big Map (click to enlarge)

Historically, the Columbia River Basin has supported a rich variety of fish and wildlife, including abundant runs of salmon and steelhead. Between 11 and 16 million wild salmon and steelhead returned from the ocean each year to spawn in rivers and tributaries throughout the 258,500 square miles of the basin. Returning adult fish spawned as far upriver in the Columbia as the headwaters at Columbia Lake, British Columbia, and migrated up the Snake River, the Columbia's largest tributary, as far as Shoshone Falls, 615 miles from the confluence, and more than 900 miles from the Pacific Ocean.

Wildlife such as deer, elk, moose, bear, song birds, and other small mammals also populated the basin. Over time, the impact of development, recreation, logging, mining, agriculture, navigation, and the generation of hydroelectric power all combined to disrupt the habitat. By the 1990s, the number of returning fish had declined to about one million annually, and many wildlife populations had also been affected.

The Northwest Power Act of 1980 authorized the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington to form the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. The Council gives the states a voice in deciding their energy future, while also protecting, mitigating, and enhancing the fish and wildlife affected by the dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers. Through the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, a portion of the money the Bonneville Power Administration earns from selling electricity is dedicated to fish and wildlife projects. It is the largest regional effort to protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources in the nation.

A critical aspect of the project review and selection process is the use of independent science. The Council conducts a thorough review of proposed projects, including examination by an 11-member panel of independent scientists. The panel analyzes proposed projects using the best scientific knowledge available to determine a project's effectiveness, and evaluates the results of prior-year funded projects to measure their success.

gorge photo
Columbia River Gorge (photo by Stephen Sasser).
Click to enlarge.

The Council, tribes, state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, and the public also participate in the review and selection process. The Council then recommends projects for funding to Bonneville to implement the program. Funding also goes toward examining important scientific and policy issues. For example, the Council appointed a scientific review team of experts in artificial production to provide an independent assessment of the basin's hatchery programs to improve artificial production and better understand the role such practices should play to recover endangered fish.

The program now directs approximately $150 million a year to over 200 projects throughout the basin using a wide variety of approaches: land acquisition to protect and preserve healthy habitats; research to help rebuild naturally spawning populations; construction, operation, and maintenance of fish hatcheries; improvements to passage systems to assist fish movement through and around the dams; restoration efforts to improve spawning and rearing habitats in tributaries; and resident fish programs that mitigate the effects of dams while supporting public fisheries.

This brochure highlights four ongoing projects, reviewed by the Council and funded by Bonneville, to help explain the work being done to restore an important part of our Northwest heritage. They are representative of many other projects currently being implemented throughout the basin to benefit fish and wildlife populations.

Developing the Seventh Power Plan

posted May 20, 2013

Primers

Symposiums

1984 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

posted May 17, 2013

See Program (4mb) and Appendices (19mb)

To the People of the Pacific Northwest:

In 1982, the Northwest Power Planning Council unveiled its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. That program turned out to be one of the most important efforts to save a natural resource currently going on in this nation. It is designed to protect and restore the once teeming fish and wildlife populations which have been seriously depleted by hydroelectric development in the Basin.

In many ways, this innovative program is far more than the Council's program. It truly belongs to the people of the Pacific Northwest. As the program developed, the Council heard oral testimony and received written commenlfrom people from all over the region. These included Indian tribes, fish and wildlife agencies and other resource managers, utilities and federal power agencies, environmental groups, scientists, and businesses, as well as private individuals. The Council reviewed and took into account all of this testimony as it developed the program.

Then, a year after the program was adopted, the Council reopened the program for amendment  and received 140 proposals from individuals and organizations throughout the region. In addition,the Council staff proposed changes.Once again,the Council went through an intensive public review process. The result is this amended program.

The Council will continue to reopen the program in the future to the people of the North­ west to allow changes which reflect knowledge gained through study and practice and new scientific technology.Thus,the program will remain vital and effective in its efforts to preserve the Basin's resources. Throughout this process, our goal will be to recognize our debt to the past at the same time we are making an investment in our future.

ISAB Review of NOAA Fisheries’ 2010 Low Flow Fish Transport Operations Proposal

posted May 17, 2013

On February 25, 2010, NOAA Fisheries requested ISAB assistance with a question related to a low flow transportation proposal for the spring 2010 juvenile salmon outmigration. Current river forecasts predict a low flow year for 2010, prompting NOAA Fisheries to propose maximizing the transport of Snake River juvenile steelhead and spring/summer Chinook in the month of May. The ISAB's review is attached.

ISAB Conclusions

  1. Multi-species Perspective
    Based on ecological principles and considering the uncertainties of the data, using combinations of transport and in-river migration with spill spreads the risk across species, stocks, and the ecosystem, while offering an approach that can shed light on uncertainties in the longer-term dataset.
  2. Operational Changes – Lessons Learned
    The ISAB concluded (ISAB 2008-5) that a mixed strategy of spill and transport during the critical spring migration period allows learning from spill conditions and supports potential advances in knowledge to improve decision-making in the future. This conclusion remains as valid in 2010 as in 2008. A mixed strategy in low-flow conditions provides an important opportunity to learn from the concurrent spill and transport mix of recent years.
  3. Addressing Uncertainties – Lamprey
    There remains a gap in knowledge of the effects of various spill-transport operations on downstream juvenile Pacific lamprey migration. Development of a suitable means of tracking migrating juvenile lamprey is a critical need. Information on Pacific lamprey response to hydrosystem operations, including spill-transport, would be vastly improved if mark-recovery methods were available for juveniles.
  4. Addressing Uncertainties – Sockeye
    Studies to examine the relative benefits of spill and transport for sockeye were initiated in 2009 and anticipated to continue in 2010. These studies could provide important additional information to reduce uncertainties relevant to sockeye juvenile migration.
  5. Addressing Uncertainties – Straying
    Out-of-basin straying remains a concern for some steelhead stocks. The reports that steelhead transported from the Snake River on barges have a higher straying rate and lower homing rate than fish migrating in-river adds to the concern. Information is needed to inform efforts to minimize the number of out-of-basin strays spawning in Lower Columbia tributaries.
  6. Spill as the Baseline – Ecological and Evolutionary Considerations
    The premise that spill more closely mimics natural situations and ecological processes than maximum transportation leads to a mixed strategy of concurrent spill and transport to conserve diversity and future potential of the ecosystem.

Thus, the ISAB conclusion is the same now as it was in 2008. From a scientific standpoint, a mixed strategy for spill and transport is best supported by the available science. Ecological and evolutionary considerations provide an important framework in support of this strategy.

NOAA Fisheries request for ISAB review

On February 25, 2010 NOAA Fisheries requested ISAB assistance with a question related to a "low flow" transportation proposal for the spring 2010 juvenile migration. These are review materials leading to the completed ISAB review:

posted 3/30/10

posted 3/16/10

posted 3/12/10

posted 3/5/10

Background

For 2010, the Columbia River Basin appears to be facing a very low water year. The latest river forecasts estimate flow at The Dalles Dam to be only 71 percent of the 30-year average. The current flow forecast for the Snake River is approximately 65 kcfs. NOAA Fisheries believes new information in a 2010 Northwest Fisheries Science Center Report demonstrates there is significant benefit to maximizing the transport of Snake River juvenile steelhead and spring/summer Chinook under low flow conditions in the month of May. Information from 2007 (the most recent low flow year) is generally consistent with transport data used to structure transport operations under the 2008 FRCRPS Biological Opinion.

The ISAB recommended, in their Snake River Spill-Transport Review (ISAB 2008-5), that “whenever river conditions allow during the late April-May period, a strategy allowing for concurrent transportation and spill is prudent.” Taking into account the ISAB’s recommendation, NOAA Fisheries looked at the data from the 2007 low-flow year and determined that if flow conditions in 2010 were similar to 2007 (i.e., <65 kcfs), it would not be “prudent” to continue spilling water in May at the three collector projects as in 2007.

NOAA's question to the ISAB: Has NOAA Fisheries correctly interpreted the ISAB’s recommendation? If not, please further explain your reasoning in the 2008 recommendation.

The ISAB intends to complete its review by early April in time to inform management decision for the salmon migration season.

posted May 17, 2013

How to Build a Power Plan: Begin With the Basics

posted May 17, 2013

 6813746229_590bd 35e 27_b

Since arriving last spring as the Council’s new power division director, Charlie Black has focused a lot of his attention on meeting people; to introduce himself, naturally, but also to listen to what they think. One of the biggest messages from people across the board was a desire for stronger communication and participation in the Council’s power planning process. 

“The mid-term assessment of the Sixth Power Plan, which we completed not too long ago, was successful largely because of our extensive outreach,” said Black. The assessment was an opportunity to revisit the plan’s assumptions, see what had changed over the last two years, and start to think about the next power plan. 

One way the division has sought to prepare Council members for the task ahead, a few who are new to their roles, has been through primers on key topics. 

So far, topics have included carbon emissions, power system capacity, and gas-fired generation. An early primer on power system flexibility, one of the key issues for the Seventh Power Plan to address, began by defining basic terms like “energy” and “peaking capacity,” and then described how system operators keep load and generation in balance. 

Almost 8,500 megawatts of wind generation has been added to the Northwest’s system, and integrating this intermittent resource presents challenges, both in the need for more system flexibility, and capacity, to manage up and down fluctuations in its output. 

Expect more information like this in the future to keep people updated and to encourage discussion on all the building blocks to developing the Seventh Power Plan.

Natural Gas Advisory Committee

posted May 14, 2013 by Massoud Jourabchi

Tentative Agenda

Natural Gas Advisory Committee

June 7th, 2013
9:00 AM to 12:30 PM

Instructions for GoToMeeting provided below

 

  1. Welcome and introductions                                                9:00 to 9:15                         
    1. Northwest Gas Outlook - (NWNGA)                             9:15 to 9:45
    2. Shale Gas- alternative scenarios (CEC)                      9:45 to 10:15
    3. NAMgas model-  (CEC)                                            10:15 to 10:45
    4. Draft Environmental Costs (Council staff)                   10:45  to 11:00
    5. Break   
    6. Straw man proposal 7th plan forecasted prices            11:10 to 12:00 
    7. Result of fuel price poll     
    8. Comparison to other forecasts
      1. How different future fuel prices are created in

 Council’s Regional Portfolio Model (council staff)              12:00 to 12:20

  1. Next steps                                                          12:20 to 12:30

 

If you are not able to attend in person, please join us meeting using GoToMeeting.

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/822067040

2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended.  Or, call in using your telephone.

Dial 1 877 309 2070

Access Code: 822-067-040

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 822-067-040

Mason County PUD No. 3 Renewable Demand Response Pilot

posted May 13, 2013

This is a report on the results of the Mason County PUD No. 3 water heater pilot.  This Northwest pilot involved 100 water heaters.  Control of the water heaters was used to explore the potential for peak shaving and renewable integration.

This report is available at http://www.masonpud3.org/conservation/docs/rdr1_pilotproject_mcpud3_finalreport.pdf.

PNUCC Identifies DSM for Capacity in NRF

posted May 13, 2013

The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee released it's Northwest Regional Forecast. The NRF identifies Demand-Side Management as a peaking capacity resource of focus to Northwest Utilities.

The report can be found at http://www.pnucc.org/sites/default/files/file-uploads/2013%20Northwest%20Regional%20Forecast_0.pdf.

council members test

posted May 13, 2013 by Melissa Shavlik

Melissa you can put content here or add it directly to the OpenTemplate template.

Flexibility Metrics Meeting

posted May 13, 2013

This meeting focused on the current state of flexibility metrics. There was a dual focus of what is currently being done in utility planning processes and what metrics are being used in research.

Agenda

posted May 13, 2013

posted May 13, 2013

The May 2, 2013 meeting focused on the current state of flexibility metrics. There was a dual focus of what is currently being done in utility planning processes and what metrics are being used in research

Contact Ben Kujala (503-222-5161) for more information.

ISRP Comment on the Yakama Nation's Response for the Klickitat Master Plan (#1988-115-35)

posted May 10, 2013

[Email sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 12:03 PM]

Tony and Mark,

The ISRP considered the Yakama Nation’s response to our questions about the Klickitat segregated steelhead harvest program. Based on the Yakama Nations’ response, we understand that this segregated steelhead program is funded through the Mitchell Act and operated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Consequently, this work is not part of the BPA funded Yakama Nation Master Plan and thus appears to be outside the Council and ISRP project review process. 

This situation is common where a Fish and Wildlife Program hatchery interacts with non-Fish and Wildlife Program hatcheries including PUD, Idaho Power, and Mitchell Act funded hatcheries. In past Step Reviews, the ISRP has not based a final Step recommendation on whether a Fish and Wildlife Program hatchery has comprehensively evaluated cumulative interactions with these other hatcheries or justified the other hatcheries’ actions. That said, the segregated steelhead program potentially has significant impacts on Klickitat steelhead and spring Chinook populations. The ISRP and ISAB have recognized the need for analysis of the cumulative effects of multiple programs at the subbasin, province, and basin levels. The ISRP is not aware of a comprehensive effort to address this cumulative effects issue, which extends well beyond this Klickitat Step Review.

The ISRP looks forward to reviewing the Yakama Nation’s Step Three submittal for the Klickitat Master Plan.  This Step Three submittal should include responses to the ISRP qualifications #2 McCreedy Creek Steelhead Supplementation and #3 Spring Chinook Integrated Harvest and Colonization, and address steelhead monitoring issue R1.2. raised in the Step Two review (ISRP 2013-01). The Klickitat Master Plan’s segregated steelhead monitoring proposes to use the proportion of smolts with hatchery parentage (<5%) observed in smolt samples as the primary guidepost. In the Step Two review, the ISRP concluded this monitoring was insufficient. The segregated steelhead program’s effects on natural populations extend beyond introgression, especially density dependent ecological effects.  The response of May 1, 2013 from the Yakama Nation specifically states they would continue to use the decision tree and introgression level for steelhead monitoring. In addition, the Step Three submittal should establish a monitoring design that recognizes and addresses disease, predation, and competition risks as well as genetic risks.

Sincerely,

Rich Alldredge

Draft Fiscal Year 2015 budget and Fiscal Year 2014 revisions

posted May 10, 2013 by Sharon Ossmann

Dear Northwest Citizen:

The Council, which is funded through the Bonneville Power Administration, holds budget increases to less than three percent per year during Fiscal Year 2014 and Fiscal Year 2015. The Council's Fiscal Year 2014 revised budget of $10,565,000 is 2.7 percent higher than the current year 2013 budget of $10,283,000. The Council's Fiscal Year 2015 budget has a projected increase of 2.2 percent to $10,794,000.

The Council is seeking comments on the proposed draft budget. In order to be considered at our July 9-10, 2013 meeting in Seattle, Washington, written comments should be received at the Council's central office by June 28, 2013. We also will allow time for oral comment on the budget at the June 11-12, 2013 Council meeting in Missoula, Montana. In addition, the Council will schedule consultations on request.

The Council expects to adopt the budget at its July meeting. Any questions on this draft budget should be directed to Sharon Ossmann, director, Administrative Division, at the Council's Central Office, 851 S.W. Sixth Ave., Suite 1100, Portland, OR, 97204.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Crow, Executive Director

Draft Sixth Power Plan public hearings and transcripts

posted May 10, 2013

Sept. 14, 2009 Pasco, Washington Transcript
Sept. 15 Spokane, Washington Transcript
Sept. 28 Eugene, Oregon Transcript
Sept. 30 Seattle, Washington Transcript
Oct. 13 Boise, Idaho Transcript
Oct. 13 Missoula, Montana Transcript
Oct. 14 Idaho Falls, Idaho Transcript
Oct. 14 Portland, Oregon Transcript

posted May 10, 2013

posted May 10, 2013

posted May 10, 2013

posted May 10, 2013

posted May 10, 2013

Download a file

posted May 10, 2013

Error loading MacroEngine script (file: downloadFile.cshtml)

LBNL Mass Market DR and VG Integration

posted May 10, 2013

This Lawrence Berkeley National Labs report focuses on the use of DR for variable generation integration. This subject definitely applies to the Northwest because of the high penetration of renewables in regional balancing authorities.

The link for the report is
http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/Ems/reports/lbnl-5063e.pdf.

Draft Sixth Power Plan Comment

posted May 10, 2013

Error loading MacroEngine script (file: draft6thPlanComment.cshtml)

Draft Sixth Power Plan Comments

posted May 10, 2013

2910 LLC Our country and the whole world is looking for leaders in the battle to fight global warming and establish non-fossil-fuel energy streams. The Northwest has several natural advantages that can hel...
Abel, Jerian I appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, and I would like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions. Although your draft plan is admirably...
Abraham, Sandra The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Adams, Mayor Sam Attached as a PDF.
Aegerter, Bob see attached
Albert, Kathy It is very necessary that the Council include stronger efficiency standards that account specifically for the cost of carbon and puts the Nonhwest back on a path away from coal power. Coal creates 4...
Albertson, Glen R. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Alcoa (Jack A. Speer) On page C-14 of the Draft Plan, the last sentence states, " This total (Aluminum DSIs) includes power provided by Chelan County PUD to Alcoa's Intalco plant". Chelan PUD does not provide power to A...
Alter, Susan Coal is dirty energy. Do not use coal!!! Sincerely, Susan Alter
Altshuler, John I appreciate what you have done so far, but to consider coas as a major source of energy and to continue the negative alteration of our environment MUST STOP NOW! No more mountain top removal! No more...
Alvarado, Dr. Arlene The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Anderson, Brian M I appreciate the work that's been done so far in the draft. It's good. It's pointing in the right direction. I would strongly encourage movement on an area that seems have been side stepped - coal....
Anderson, Don Oregon law calls for a 75-percent cut in 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a figure the council has determined will only be reached with a virtual elimination of coal from the power system. And...
Anderson, Leslie we have wind. we have waves. we have water. we have solar power. hydrogen power is on the horizon. we don't need coal-fired plants that pollute and contribute to global warming. when greed kills our w...
Anderson, Lynn The northwest is going to be growing tremendously in the next few decades, and it is extremely important that we plan for more renewable energy. I was recently in Germany for the first time, and they...
Anderson, Theodore L. (Tad), PhD see attached
Andrews, Jim The U.S. needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions. In Oregon, that means closing the Boardman coal-fired generating plant. The least expensive source of new power is conservation.
Antich, John The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Arakawa, Clarice Please close the dirty coal producers. We need this help with our environment, we can not put off this important issue any longer.
Arcana, Judith Oregon, like the rest of this country - and the world - must stop using coal as a fuel source. You already know all the reasons, so I won't belabor them here. I'm writing to add my name/voice/op...
Armon, Caroline To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Armstrong, April The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
artists4action To the members of the NPCC: I believe you are legally required to take ESA listings into account with your plan. So, I hope: YOU TAKE DOWN THE FOUR DAMS ON THE SNAKE & start accelerating your pla...
Artley, Dick Dear NPCC members, The draft 6th Power Plan for the electricity needs of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana does not recognize the reality that global climate change continues to get worse an...
Asami, Shinya The State and all the municipalities should seriously look into adopting pyrolysis technology which will turn all the municipal waste, including all the non-recyclable plastics and medical waste, into...
Bailey, Rep. Jules Kopel see attached
Bain, Don Wind Diversity The temporal diversity of production at different wind sites across the NW is a key issue which needs to be better addressed in the Plan regarding regional wind integration, utility ...
Baker III, David L. I am opposed to the power plan. Salmon have been under attack in the past and now in the present. They need to be protected for us and future generations. The impact of Dams and gold mines are not ...
Baker, Stephen No Coal. No short-term approaches to a long-term problem. Once spoiled, the environment and Oregon's natural beauty are gone forever.........long after the last coal is burned up. The time is ripe ...
Banks, Wesley The new power plan should have a strongly support conservation of power as a resource. It should not encourage nuclear power via tax breaks or continued public support of any liabilities engendered...
Barnhart, Richard Dear Sirs: Thank you for your work on increasing energy efficiency. I hope that you take a strong stance against greenhouse gases. Coal should have no place in creating more energy in the the Northwe...
Baumgartner Books No more coal. Get wise.
Bayne, Christopher J The notion that we have the right to deplete the natural resources of planet Earth for the convenience of our generation, and the next one or two, could be characterized as criminal. It is to be expec...
Bell, Daniel The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Bender, Tom I strongly appreciate the sensible emphasis on efficiency as mechanism for meeting load projections. I urge you to take stronger leadership addressing the combined issues of global warming, peak oil,...
Bender, Tom The proposed 6th Power Plan is good, with its strong emphasis on efficiency. It would be far better if existing coal plants were removed from the mix, because of their huge pollution issues and being...
Benner, Steven
Bennett, Henry The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Bergen, Marie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Berry, Erik The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Beschenbossel, Victoria The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Best, Richard & Wendy To the formulators of the Draft Sixth Power Plan: We urge you to phase out coal fired greenhouse gas emissions under the Plan to match requirements in effect for the States of Oregon and Washington...
bettylattie@yahoo.com The time has come for oregon and its people to choose ecologically sound power sources. Coal-fire plants do not meet that criteria. We can and must change our power sources, very, very soon. Let's...
Bhakti, Sara, Ph.D. Att: Mr. Mark Walker, Director of Public Affairs Please adopt a regional power plan that emphasizes clean and green energy sources. Especially, make a truly meaningful effort to phase out coal thu...
Bhakti, Sara, Ph.D. Just one coal plant - Centralia's Big Hanaford Power Plant - is generating our state's biggest cloud of global warming pollution. I encourage the phasing out of coal plants in my state of Washingt...
Bianchi, Don The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Birck, Kim and Bill Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the power plan. I will make this short and sweet. Minimize coal use! Maximize use of alternative and renewable fuels. Maximize energy conservati...
Birkel, Steven J I support planning that will rid our region of Coal based electricity generation. The Northwest has available many alternatives for clean, low-carbon generation - our energy generation plans should b...
Birnel, John Please consider having a net decrease in emissions by phasing out the Coal Powered Plant. Our grandchildren deserve no less.
Bitner, Patricia I was present at the public hearing held in Eugene Oregon on September 28. I would like to make the following comments regarding the Sixth Power Plan. Many comments on September 28 reflected conce...
Blade, Tina I understand that the 6th draft of the power and conservation plan would stabilize carbon emissions by meeting virtually all of our new electricity needs over the next 20 years with energy efficiency ...
Blair, Linda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Blake, Amy The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Blakely, Patrick We need to push forward with alternative, renewable energy solutions. One idea thst seems to have marit is tidal energy. Another is wind and yet another is solar. If we don't move ahead on clean energ...
Blakey, Carole It is imperative that the plan would stabilize carbon emissions by meeting virtually all of our new electricity needs over the next 20 years with energy efficiency and renewable energy. However I am ...
Blank, Dee Dear Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Last winter, the snow piled up on tree branches far heavier than I have ever seen it in the 20 years I have owned and lived in this house. A lot of t...
Bloom, Elizabeth The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Blume, Dan I come from North Dakota. Coal Country. Western N.D. has at least 10 coal fired electrical generating plants and many are 500 megawatts each. I am a pipefitter and have worked on most of them. ND also...
Bolane, Peter The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Boldt, Lana Mcgraw Your efforts to encourage energy conservation and alternative energy sources are commendable. But it nothing more than window-dressing unless you get compliance. That will only come with the additio...
Boles, Shawn It would seem to be obvious to all but the intentionally oblivious that coal is inappropriate as a basis for energy production.
Bonneville Power Administration
Boom, Diana Thank you for your work so far. However, the plan needs to address our use of coal. We need to reduce our reliance on coal. Please include a goal that reduces greenhouse gas emissions which can be...
Boring, Grit While nations from the whole world gather next month, trying to agree on new and strickter CO2 remission standards in an effort to stop or even reverse global warming, we in Americas's Northwest ought...
Boucher, Samantha The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Bourcier, Lee Ann I sure appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, but I'd also like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions, particularly the use of coal ...
Bowden, Susan Support a Strong Clean Energy and Climate Bill Dear Mark Walker, The Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act (S.1733) is a historic step forward towards a clean energy economy that works for ever...
Brady, Irene Global warming is such a drastically urgent problem that we cannot afford to consider coal or other dirty fuels as feasible power sources. Please alter your plans to allow us to eliminate coal entire...
Brady, Sean & Alicia The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Breen, Carol To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Brinkerhoff, Dr Merlin The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Brooks, Jon The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Brost, Patty We need to eliminate the coal plants that produce electricity to meet the standards that have been set for 2050. These plants are producing too much of the pollution of our state to be considered "cle...
Brown, Jason The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Brown, Jeremy Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan, which for a large part is a surprisingly progressive plan. I strongly support the components that deal with renewables and conservation, while ad...
Brownstein, Richard J. The Council should address the continued and future use of coal in the region and make recommendations for its use to be eliminated as soon as pracicable
Bruner, Linda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Bruner,Jean via voicemail, see attached
Buchner, Scott The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Buhl, Carolyn To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Burgard, Donald The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Burgard, Donald J. No coal - eventually - please. Emphasize energy conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources - immediately - please. Measure energy cost by accounting for the price of carbon emissions - i...
Burkhart, David To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Burkholder, Bob L. Please include the following comments in the record of the Public Hearing for NPCC's Six Draft Power Plan: Remember to take in account the fact that over the centuries millions of salmon and steelh...
Burwell, Julia The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Butler, Judy We cannot risk being wrong on this issue. We must reduce our carbon emissions now. 350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying...
Callaway, Phillip To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Callison, Rhonda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Camp, Tracy I am writing to urge the council to include a clear path for reducing the regions dependency on fossil fuels and in particular coal power generation as a base-load component. We will continue to have...
Campbell, Merle & Mary The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Caplan, David To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Carey, Catharine I support clean energy, specifically the development and use of alternative and renewable energy sources, conservation, and energy efficiency. I strongly oppose increasing the supply of low-cost elec...
Carey, Robin Council Members: Couldn't make the hearing, but want you to know that, in my view, global warming is a much, much bigger deal than people at the moment believe. Most of us are still comfortably i...
Carlson, Caitlin To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Casacky, Teresa The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Chapin, Anthony The primary objective in energy efficiency goals is the reduction of pollution. Let's remember that while creating new policy. Let's create policy that gives us the quickest road to clean energy. ...
Chapman, Ted I will make this brief and simple: Oregon's energy future should involve the cleanest energy sources possible (as should the nation's and the world's). Obviously, the elimination of poluting types of ...
Chase, Pamela " I want the Council to take steps to phase out Coal Power, cut Co2 efficiency, and include stronger efficiency standards."
Chetwood, William E. There must be adequate considerations for the passage of fish to their historic spawning grounds and a open passage back to the ocean. If there is no workable provision for this, that works, then rem...
Chick, Yvonne The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Christ, M'lou A good start, but you forgot to declare that we must get rid of the coal plant in our energy source mix. It's just too bad for the environment. Increasing conservation is great, adding some new alte...
Christensen, Ann Thank you for this opportunity to comment on Draft Sixth Power Plan. You are moving in the right direction by using conservation and renewables and phasing out coal plants. I urge you to go further. A...
Christensen, Tom To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Cilimburg, Amy November 5, 2009 I would like to comment briefly on the draft 6th Northwest Power and Conservation Plan. I attended the hearing for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council meeting in Missoul...
Cimo, Bonnie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Citizens for Clean Energy, Inc. Dr. Walker, Thank you very this great opporunity to provide comments. My name is Lt. Colonel (retired, US Army) Richard D. Liebert, chairman of Citizens for Clean Energy, Inc., a diverse grassroot...
Citizens Utility Board of Oregon Meeting with Bob Jenks and Jeff Bissonnette, Citizens Utility Board of Oregon. Melinda Eden and Joan Dukes, NPCC Main subjects discussed: --Public hearing held in Portland on 10/14 --Draft Six...
citizenvern It sounds like the latest energy plan is great! Awesome. I do think we need to form some sort of plan for weaning ourselves off of coal though. Thanks for all of the great work though!
Clark, James To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. As a previous commercial salmon fisherman, the health of the local salmon runs is an important i...
Clark, Pamela To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Clawson, Chip Please focus on conservation and renwable energy and include as little coal as possible.
Claypool, Lynda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Clough, Dr Bradley The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Coal Free Northwest We applaud the Northwest Power & Conservation Council for creating an energy roadmap that shows how we can meet our energy needs over the next 20 years with no increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Bu...
Coal Free Northwest See attached cards.
Coatney, Jeremy I honestly appreciate that you are trying to increase energy efficiency and focus on renewable energy sources, but we need strong measures to reduce greenhouse gases. Set legislation to reduce gree...
Cody, Ben There isn't much more important than saving salmon, this should take priority over the needs of the power industry. Take out dams, restore habitat.
Cole, Kathleen Dear Council, I have been closely following the work that your commitee has been doing this year to conserve our NW resources and meet future energy needs. I hope that in the weeks ahead, that you ...
Coleman, Bill Sir; There is absolutely no proof that greenhouse emissions affect global climate. Until the time that this can be proven beyond doubt, and during this difficult economic period it would be nothin...
Collings, Dustin [Shane] dear Person, thank you for empowering people who want clean energy; we adore what you [are] doing!
Collison, Sharon Short term greed should not be allowed to lead to long term destruction. There is NO CLEAN COAL. I already have asthma and find it hard to breathe. Please stand up for people now and stand up for t...
Collison, Sharon " I am an asthma sufferer and I live in Oregon, and I want the Council to adopt a clean Power Plan. I would like us to get the "clean" gasoline that the other states receive. Since under George W. w...
Columbia Energy Partners LLC (Peter Blood)
Conger, Kurt Proceed carefully and perform both capacity and energy calculations with integrity. Do not over simplify the task of balancing instantaneous demand and production. Commenters who would quickly abandon...
Connor, Michael Great Plan, BUT, here's what's needed: NO COAL!!! NO NUCLEAR!!! Be patriotic Americans and switch to SOLAR Distributed Generation.
Cook, Donald The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Cooper, Katherine You have done wonderful work towards Oregon's future. Please look again at the use of Coal in this plan. We can find a better option for our children and grandchildren. Thank You Katherine Cooper
Corbin, Linda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Corelli, Nina The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Corey, Margie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Cosimo, Rosario The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Couche, Stephen Dear Walker, The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energ...
Cox, Ellen I am writing to request that the NWPCC's final plan provides for the following: --Preserves strong energy efficiency and renewable energy targets --Sets goals to reduce CO2 emissions in the re...
Cox, Thomas The NWPPC should do everything within its power to eliminate power sources that are major creators of greenhouse gasses, and replace them with green, renewable alternatives. The Centralia coal=powere...
Craig, Edward We are the generation that gets to pay for the excesses of our forefathers. We get to see the predicted dire consequences bear fruit and kill our children. We get to see the climate change our elders ...
Crawford, Noelle The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
CREDO CitizenLetter CitizenLetter attached plus list of addressees who sent it.
CRITFC
Cronin, Darcy I want to take a moment to let you know how important it is to my family to stop using dirty coal power in Oregon. I want my children to rely upon cleaner energy sources. I understand that economics a...
CTUIR DNR
Cuevas, Nicole The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Current, Jon The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Currey, C Coal IMO should receive NO SUBSIDY at all. Let the coal industry sink or swim w/o "socialism" and "welfare" as it wants private individuals to do. If there is to be subsidies, then they s/b going ...
Curtis, Colleen No Coal
Dahlgren, Mr. Shelley D., PhD Fossil fuels have to go, and the sooner the better. Coal especially is a huge polluter. The global warming and ocean acidification caused by burning coal and oil are well documented. I personally ...
Dana, Sam Increasing energy-efficient does not equate to reducing carbon emissions, it just reduces demand from current (historic) uses. Overall demand continues to increase as new demands, such as powering ele...
Darienzo, Mark I appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, but would like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions.
Darsonval, Lisa To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Dave Krick/Greenworks Idaho/Sustainable Community Connections of Idaho Northwest Power & Conservation Council: Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on the 6th Power Plan. Things being normal, this plan is aggressive if not historic as compared to previou...
David, Williams I think that its way past time to evolve past the dark age'es and start producing our energy in a more sustainable manner. Coal is only cheaper because they don't include all the cost associated with ...
Davidovich, Nadia The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Davis, Albert Mr. Walker: I do not want to see enforced conservation as has occurred in certain other states. While developing better energy efficient devices for heating and cooling is very desired, the public ...
Davis, Joan The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Davis, Mr. Galen To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. Its proposal to meet all new demand for el...
Dawson, Elizabeth The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Day, Richard A. Dear NW Power and Conservation council, I believe that we need to be even more agressive in moving away from coal as a supplier of future energy needs and toward natural gas, an available in USA sour...
DeJohn, LeeRoy The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Deldin, Ellyse The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Delleney, Katherine Please stop ignoring the elephant in the room...COAL. Please make your good plan GREAT and have an exit strategy for our coal dependence. We cannot live another 21 years with the massive emmissions ...
Deniro, Elizabeth I strongy support the removal of the lower 4 dams on the Snake River, and the healthy wild salmon provisions. The NPCC's Draft 6th Pwer Plan provides for meeting the power needs of the people and busi...
Detman, Thomas R. Sometime during the 1970's, Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Sheikh Ahmed Azki Yamani, reportedly said: "The stone age did not end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs ...
Dettmann, James The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
DeVagno, Joan The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Devine, Robert Dear Northwest Power and Conservation Council, From what I hear, the sixth draft of your future power plan for the Northwest is an enormous improvement in terms of moving our region from fossil fue...
Dianne, Ensign To the members of the NPCC: The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electricity in the Northwest with conservation and renewables is excellent...
Dickenson, Rep. Sue As a legislator and a citizen very concerned about climate change, I applaud the council's recognition of energy efficiency and conservation as the first fuel and see the possibility of having many me...
Dickie, Bruce The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Dickie, Bruce The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Digman, Joe The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Donnelly, Pete The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Donofrio, Mac Preserves strong energy efficiency and renewable energy targets Sets goals to reduce CO2 emissions in the region—three states in the region have already done this Phases out coal-fired power plants ...
Doty, Edward Please adopt a clean regional power plan.
Dougherty, Janet The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Dougherty, Mary Ann Mark Walker, Director of Public Affairs Northwest Power and Conservation Council, I'd like to thank the Council for its work on the Power Plan. However I believe that our dependence on coal must b...
Douglas, Aaron Kirk I'd like to have someone connect the dots explaining to me how we are going to burn coal at the same time we are drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions? Something has to give: it should be...
Douglas, Joan We need to put saving the salmon/steehead from extinction as a top priority. I would pay more for power if we removed dams to support this desire; even during these tough economic times. This fish is...
Doulis, Tom The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Dowd, Cristin IF NOT NOW; WHEN? THE DOOR TO OUR FUTURE IS CLOSING; ARE WE GOING TO STAND BY AND WATCH IT CLOSE? PLEASE HELP BUILD A SMARTER FUTURE FOR OUR COUNTRY.
Doyle, Lynn Patrick The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Drahos, Janice The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Drais, Daniel see attached
Dray, Patricia The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Driese, Maureen time is of the essence now we cannot afford to wait to get to acceptable carbon levels for the planet Oregon has traditionally been viewed as the "environmental state" we must keep this tradition...
Drissell, Eric The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Duehren, Derrick Please make plans to shut down the Boardman coal plant within 5 years. The Earth can take this level of polution no longer.
Dukelow, Dianne Please keep coal outand greener in
Duncan, Angus See attached
Dunham, Janet The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Dunn, Laura The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Early, Dr. Kathie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Easterday, John To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Ebel, Kevin L To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Edith, Wyrick We can't afford to continue our dependence on coal as an energy resource. It produces 23 percent of the region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of the region’s pollution. The Northwest Power ...
Edwards, Karin Please consider the impact of coal pollution as you decide the future of green power. Thank you! Sincerely, Karin Edwards
Eggen, Carol it's not good enough to stablise emissions, we need a plan to significantly reduce them and that means phasing out the use of coal to supply energy. In addition to conservation there are clean energy ...
Ellersick, Steve Where is Dixie Lee Ray when we need her? We need an engineer, scientist leader to create a plan and implement nuclear power again in the Pacific Northwest. I see no such planning in the 6th draft, w...
Ellis, Joell The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Energy Northwest Please see PDF attachment.
EnerNOC, Inc. (Melanie Gillette) Dear Mr. Walker and NWPCC Staff, EnerNOC, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide some brief comments on the Council's Draft Sixth Power Plan (Sixth Plan). We have actively participated in the ...
Erickson, Keith The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Estes, Wayne Please take this present planning opportunity to fully end use of coal in the Pacific NW. Wayne Estes
Esteve, Gregory The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Estrin, Mildred The 6th Power plan needs to incorporate much more alternative energy options than it presently does.This will save consumers money and help restore much needed salmon habitat.
Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) -- Bill Welch and Jason Heuser TO: The Northwest Power and Conservation Council FROM: Bill Welch and Jason Heuser DATE: November 2, 2009 SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Sixth Power Plan Conservation Targets EWEB...
Evanoff, Renee The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Eventoff, Franklin To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Eventoff, Franklin It’s critical that ensure the Council approves a final plan that provides the region with a path to meet growing power needs, wean us from dirty coal, bring endangered salmon and steelhead back from t...
Faget, Crispin I GATHER THE COUNCIL WILL STABILIZE CARBON EMISSIONS. THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT BUT NOT ENOUGH. IT IS IMPORTANT TO TARGET A REDUCTION IN CARBON EMISSIONS.
Falk, Karen To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Farrell, Dr. David The plan needs to go further. The million-ton elephant in the council’s room is coal, which produces 23 percent of the region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of the region’s pollution. The draf...
Fay, Mary Thanks you for this opportunity to comment on the proposal for energy policies. First, set strong goals to reduce Co2 emissions.One way to reduce is to phase out all coal-fired plants. Acccount...
Feder, Melanie " I would like the COuncil to adopt a Power Plan that includes stronger efficiency standards and to cut cO2 emmissions and reduce our dependency on coal."
Ferguson, Zachory L. Concerned Parties, There was a time and place for coal in this nations energy policy. It ended on the east coast with the nineteenth century. Too long have greedy energy companies foisted popular myt...
Findling, Sharon There is NO such thing as clean coal.
Finnell, Daralene To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Finnell, John To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Fisher, Laurie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Fitzgerald, Liam PLEASE create a strong plan that responsibly ends our reliance on coal. We need a plan that reduces pollution, puts a price on carbon emissions and has the strongest energy efficiency targets possibl...
Fleisher, Marc Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. It's OK as far as it goes but it could be immeasurably strengthened by a greater emphasis on what is good for salmon, on the on...
Ford, Walter E. Is the US ever going to build some of the new "Green" Nuclear Power Plants at Hanford? And if so When?
Forrest, Kim The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Forsyth, Carolyn While the draft plan does a good job at emphasizing conservation and renewables, it stops short of fully realizing Oregon's potential to drastically lower its greenhouse gas emissions by shutting down...
Foster, Jackie I hope the plan will preserve strong energy efficiency and renewable standards and phase out coal-fired power plants.
Foster, Randy We do not need more coal fired power, we need more solar and wind generated power, and more research for wave technology. Coal is outdated and dealdy. It also destroys the land it is removed from whic...
Franklin PUD
Franklin PUD As we discussed I'm sending you the language I quoted for my comment. The Draft's language is currently as follows: CONS-11. In recognition of the higher goal for industry-sector conservation,...
Franklin PUD Hi, I was happy to see the comments of Tom Karier in PNUCC Report Sept 3 and Sept 9. I am glad to see Mr. Karier realizes the consequences if California utilities are allowed to unbundle wind generat...
Franklyn, Gregory The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Freeman, Douglas Coal produces 23 percent of the region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of the region’s pollution. Oregon law calls for a 75 percent cut in 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This figure w...
Fugere, Angie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Fulghum, Christian Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please consider the long term effects of your decision. It is important that as the stewards of the environment which sustains us, we think not only in te...
Furlong, Roger This is in reference to the Draft Sixth Power Plan. I'm strongly in favor of a plan that: * Includes strong energy efficiency and renewable energy targets that remain unchanged * Sets goals to...
Gagnon, Ronda Lee The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Galbraith, Susanne The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Gamba, Mark Greetings, Unfortunately I will be unable to attend your hearing in Seattle. It is very important to me that as you look to the future you are very clear on the critical issues. As a race, a nation...
Garcia, Tony The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Gardner, Ben Clean energy is important for America's future. Not only from an environmental stand point, but also from an economical one. Simply investing in clean energy will lend to it's growth providing me clea...
Gazzuolo, Michael The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Gearry, Marceline There is no such thing as clean coal. Don't bring it into Oregon.
Gehe, Graham energy derived from coal is neither clean nor green.
Gehring, Wendy Make coal obsolete.
Geldaker, Carol I would support action to take out our use of coal. It seems that I have heard the pollution of the coal plant has been identified. The company wants extensions, exceptions etc. In the meantime, th...
Gendvil, Derek The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
George, Barton To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Geren, Don The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Gessaman, Kathleen Z. Dear Council Members: The plan to meet new electricity needs over the next 20 years with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and no new fossil-burning power plants is admirable. The dra...
Giese, Mark M I support the plan moving away from any new fossil fuel production. I support the move to energy efficiency and renewable energy as the resources of first choice in the region. While the draft ...
Gilbert, Toni Do all you can to cut carbon emmissions. The survival of the planet is at stake. Toni
Gilleon, Laurie Please help ensure a clean energy future for the Northwest. Make sure that the NWPCC’s final plan: Preserves strong energy efficiency and renewable energy targets Sets goals to reduce CO2 emissi...
Gimre, Kerensa The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Ginn, Judy I understand that your plan will stabilize current emissions but not actually reduce emissions. While I applaud what the plan does and how difficult it must be for you to do this, I strongly urge you...
goldsmith, dell Dear Staff: A focus on renewable energy is, of course, the thing to do but we need to stop burning coal if we and many other living things are to survive on our fragile planet. Please cut your ties ...
Gols, L The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Goot, Yvette The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Gordon, Ingrid The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Gordon, Julia The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Gould, Laura The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Gracey, Erik Dear NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electricity i...
Grant, David To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Grant, Jeannette It is time for you to cut your ties to coal for electicity, there is entirely too much polution from using coal and we must lower all these sources if we and generations following have any chance of c...
Graser-lindsey, Elizabeth My family has been following the climate change and peak oil issues carefully and we observe that the science of the situation indicates that WE NEED TO TURN AWAY FROM COAL NOW if our children are to ...
Gray, Jana I'd like to see the State of Oregon generate it's power from Wind, Solar and other renewable sources, and not build any more new Coal plants.
Griffith, Jennifer To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Gritzner, Ingeborg The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Grob, Diana The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Groh, Jan I strongly believe that we can meet all of our power needs now and in the future without the Boardman Coal plant (or any coal) in the mix. We can do this through a combination of new green technologie...
Grossman, Ellen The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Grove, Darlene L. And John D. To: Northwest Power and Conservation Council From: Darlene L. and John D. Grove PO Box 77 Stevensville, MT 59870 406-777-2423 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the futur...
Gunderson, Eric I urge the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to eliminate coal from its plan for future power generation. There is absolutley no way we will meet goals for reduction of greenhouse gas emission...
Guth, Dorothy To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Guth, Robert The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Halbedel, Tricia The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Hall, Camille Please cleanup our existing coal power plants, such as the one currently operating in Boardman, OR. Soot from this plant clogs the airways in Portland, leaving soot and ash on cars and patios as far s...
Hall, Jessica The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Hall, Jewel Now, not in the year 2030, is the time to start planning our exit from a coal-dependent energy policy. It's time to make a good plan great.
Hall, Michael I laud your efforts to promote energy self-sufficiently through the increased use of renewable resources. This is much appreciated! Nevertheless, to help Oregon reach its 2050 emissions reduction t...
Hamilton, Roger (Western Grid Group) see attached
Hanks, Laura It's totally ridiculous for Oregon to rely on coal power, when we have ample wind, water & solar resources. Phase out Boardman, starting now!
Hannah, Roger The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Hansen, Carol Work and plan for the future. Clean energy now. Please do everything technologically possible to protect our air and water and reduce global warming. Thank you.
Hansen, Carol The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Hanson, Duane Hey Guys, Let's all be serious here. The decisions arrived at now will affect the future directly and severely. Will it be cuts in pollutions WE KNOW are killing the very planet we rely o...
Hanson, Lynn The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Hardt, Dr. Mark The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Harmon, James The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Harris, Bruce The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Harris, Chris It's time to get real about the future ... and coal is NOt it!
Harvey, Barbara The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Hatch, Nick The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Hausrath, Alan Dear Northwest Power and Conservation Council, I'm writing to comment on the Draft Sixth Power Plan. First off, thank you very much for producing a forward looking, conservation and energy efficie...
Hawkinson, Colby To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Hayden, Bobby To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Hayes, John Northwest Power and Conservation Council: Thank you for your outstanding effort regarding energy efficiency and a new focus on renewable sources. I hope you will agree that this is the appropriate ...
Hegg, Nancy The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Heinkel, Lisa ---------------------------------- To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. I...
Hekate I congratulate the Council members on their excellent plans to stabilize CO2 emissions through intensive energy conservation. That is a good beginning. However, the commission's plan fails to addres...
Helgeson, Kathryn The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Helgeson, Les Given the tremendous investment in "green power" in the norhtwest, it makes little sense to continue operating pollution spewing coal plants.
Henderson Jr, Edward M. see attached
Hendin, Judith The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Henken, Jim To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Herbert, Emily Because of the majority contribution to CO2 production from coal, it is time to remove coal from the future mix of energy sources in our region. Please take this on directly and rule out coal in our ...
Herron, Matt see attached
Heumann, Michael see attached
Hewitt, Pam
Heydenreich, Robert A. I do appreciate that the power plan includes provisions for energy efficiency and renewable energy. These are important features. However, I would like to see you go a step further by phasing out be...
Heyneman, Amy To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Hiestand, Kathryn Dear Northwest Power and Conservation Council, I am writing to you as a person concerned for the future of clean air and water. As guidelines are made that launch our decisions for energy sources and...
Higgins, Marvin To the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. We are asking you all to give you full support to measures that will significantly increase the use of clean, renewable energy (such as wind and solar...
Highlow, Percy via voicemail, see attached
Hine, Patricia S. Dear Council Members, There's no time to waste here. Please get serious and be PROACTIVE about getting us off oil-based energy. We have the technology and the will. This is big opportunity for the ...
Hirsch, Robin It is time to progress forward with clean energy and job stimulus in the non polluting energy industry. We now have an administration that is environmentally concearned and could assist without bow...
Hixenbaugh, Brenda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Hlavna, Robert The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Hockley, Len We need to get rid of coal burning power plants as soon as possible.
Hodges, Thomas I want to urge Director Walker to adopt a clean regional power plan.
Holloway, Kathleen Good work on your energy plan for the Northwest but you need to more agressively work to reduce energy generated by coal. Any forward-thinking plan needs to address the issue of coal-fired plants. T...
Hopfenbeck, Paul To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Hopkins, Tom I'll be short. It is important that the Power & conservation plan take the elimimation of coal fired power generation in Oregon into consideration. Cheap is expensive in terms of pollution and the r...
Hopper, Janelle To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Horn, Darryl Firstly thank you all for your efforts on behalf of myself, my family, and Oregon. I find it inspiring the task you have taken up and faced and will overcome. I pledge my support and want you to know ...
Houck, Kendall While there are many admirable goals established in the current Draft Plan, it still relies far too heavily on the continued use of coal fired electrical plants. Any 20 year planning document for the...
Houston, Abigail " I would like to urge the Council to adopt a clean regional power plan."
Howe, Marty The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Hoyt-mcbeth, Stephen Michael Dear Mr. Walker, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NW Council's Draft Sixth Power Plan. While I applaud the Council for its aggressive energy efficiency targets, I think the plan coul...
Huffman, Vernon We should be planning for the end of using nonrenewable resources, like coal and uranium, to generate power. Conservation of electricity can go a long way, especially if we use direct sun for heat - s...
Huffman, Vernon To do our part to sustain human life on Earth, we should aggressively work to meet all our needs from renewable resources without disrupting natural cycles. This means a dramatic change in American li...
Hughes, Randall The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Hull, Doree I am really disappointed that the Pacific Northwest, land of abundant hydro-electric power, is still involved with the production of electricity with coal. It is time to move away from this polluting ...
Hunt, Dennis In order to bridge the gap to future energy independence, we must build clean nuclear power plants, and use available resources such as coal and gas today. If we drive up the cost of energy now, that...
Hunter, Christopher As a concerned citizen of Oregon I appreciate the Northwest Power and Convservation Council's efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables but would like to see those efforts fortified with a ...
Hurd, John Uranium 238 (U-238) is a principal ingredient in the nuclear cycle. It is subject to "chain of custody" in that it must be sequestered from human contact. At issue is just how long it might be poss...
Hutchison, Susan Povey NO MORE COAL !!
Huth, Kyle see attached
Huth, Kyle The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Hutton, Ms. Robbie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Idaho Conservation League
Idaho Consumer-Owned Utilities Association 11/5/2009 Comments on 6th Power Plan by the Idaho Consumer-Owned Utilities Association: Dear Council Members, The Idaho Consumer-Owned Utilities Association (ICUA) represents 14 rural elect...
Idaho Falls Power
Idaho Power Company
Ignatovich, Cynthia M. Please do everything you can to save the salmon! I grew-up in Oregon and it is just tragic what has happened to our salmon. Save the salmon is important to Oregon's economy and the health of all of Or...
Independent Economic Advisory Board (IEAB) See http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/ieab/ieab2009-3.htm
Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities
Jackson, Jeff While the draft plan has some good elements, it needs to be strengthened. The plan should reflect the best and latest climate science and be tailored to meeting regional carbon-reduction goals. The ...
Jacobs, Nikki The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Jaffee, Daniel To the Council: I am writing to urge you in the strongest possible terms to eliminate coal from any new power planning for the Pacific Northwest. While I strongly appreciate your good work to dat...
Jankowski, David In a "Petro-Dollar" economy its really REALLY hard to preach non-scarity and abundance, but, I know so c alled "free" energy s the reality. The early scientists of elestromagnatic theory Maxwell and...
Jarvis, Heidi I live on Whidbey Island in the state of Wa. It is truely a special place. Part of what makes the area so beautiful is the overall abundance of nature's bounty. Part of that is the knowledge that the ...
Jatul, Chris I'm impressed with the idea that we can save 58% on our need for more energy through efficiency. I support the goal as well as going with wind and natural gas instead of coal. Why is there no mentio...
Jenner, Maureen 1)Bravo NW Council for the plan moving Idaho away from any new fossil fuel production. 2)I support the move to energy efficiency and renewable energy as the resources of first choice in the regio...
Jennings, Gerry The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Jimenez, Ben The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Johns, Bill It used to be that available power drove the NW economy especially eastern Washington. New power sources were agressively sought and developed. Now your plans call for less energy use and the use of u...
Johnson, Maile We urgently need an energy plan that switches us off dirty coal, restores salmon and steelhead runs, electrifies transportation and helps to reduce growing power needs, while meeting them.
Johnson, Mark To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Johnson, Michael A little honesty would be appreciated here. There is no such thing as clean coal, and likely never will be. Even though we have lots of the stuff, that doesn't change that reality. It's time that s...
Johnstad, Mark This plan should focus upon four priorities. 1. Improve energy conservation; 2. Support renewable energy production; 3. Make certain that any increase in renewable energy production is mat...
Johnston, Holly The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Jones, Jill M. As a citizen of Washington State who is concerned about my children's future, I helped collect signatures for the green energy initiative. I also grew up attending a school that sat in the shadow of a...
Jones, Nora To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Jones, Stephen R And Elizabeth Please take action to stop the expansion of the use of coal. It is imperative that we limit carbon dioxide emissions if the planet and is to survive. We must do this for our children and grandchildr...
Joos, Sandra The draft power and conservation plan from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council is a good start. Your work is appreciated, but is not finished. The plan needs to go further by including a pla...
Joos, Sandra To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Joos, Sandra, PhD I applaud the fact that the draft plan would stabilize carbon emissions by meeting virtually all of our new electricity needs over the next 20 years with energy efficiency and renewable energy. ...
Joyce, Mary Anne t is tiem to stop using coal and reduce greenhouse gases.
Kail, C.A. Although it may have been a bit of a financial hardship, most people across the U.S. (the wealthiest country on Earth) continued to buy gasoline for their vehicles even when the price per gallon nearl...
Kaiser, Deborah The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Kaiser, Robert The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Kallas, John Dear Mark, Please do anything it takes to keep coal and other CO2 energy sources out of future energy generation plans. We should be moving in the direction of energy conservation and clean source...
Kameenui, Brenda I attended the NW Council hearing in Eugene, and I was pleased by the emphasis on conservation. Thank you for your work. My great hope is that the Council will further Oregon's move to clean energ...
Kameenui, Brenda I submitted a comment but forgot to mention the extremely important notion of protecting wild salmon. The final NW plan needs to address this crucial issue. Scientists conclude that removing the fou...
Kane, Tom
Kaser, Sam 1. WE MUST TEAR DOWN AND IGNORE OBSTICALS ( NRC ) AND FORGE AHEAD WITH NUCLEAR POWER AND ADD NUCLEAR TO OUR FUTURE PRODUCTION PLANS. 2. WE MUST PRESERVE OUR EXISTING DAMS, AT LEAST UNTIL NUKES HAVE...
Kaufman, Laura The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Kaye, Leslie I want this energy plan to be clean, efficient and green. There are no longer ANY viable excuses for this to not happen! I absolutely support the building up of wind power plants; I absolutely desire ...
Keebler, Wesley The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Keele, Van P. see attached
Kempster, Brent To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Kendall, Kay Please adopt a clean regional power plan.
Kennedy, Charles I appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, but would like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions. I believe a carbon tax should be placed ...
Kerlick, David, PhD see attached
Kersting, John Hello, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on our future energy plans. As a concerned consumer, former journalist, social studies teacher and parent, I urge you to take a long view on developing...
Key, Nuin-tara I support the recent draft power and conservation plan which outlines a comprehensive vision for the next 20 years and I support the council's vision for meeting our region’s rising electricity demand...
Keys, John E. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. Please do more to help recover Salmon! The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good p...
Kincaid, Lois I have perhaps a unique perspective on pollution in Oregon. Last Wednesday I was with my hiking group at Cloud Cap, 7000' or more elevation, on the east side of the Mt. Hood. We could see many of th...
Kincaid, Patricia M You have done a good job on your vision of the next 20 years. Thank you. I am concerned about coal plants. Coal produces 23 percent of our region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of the ...
King County, Washington To the Northwest Power and Conservation Council: Please see attached letter offering comment on the Draft Sixth Power Plan, submitted on behalf of King County Washington, by Executive Kurt Triplett...
King, Carolyn To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is generally a good plan. The proposal to meet all new demand for electric...
King, Marina I urge the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to take a stronger stand than just staying the course on emissions due to our power usage. We need to cut greenhouse gases and particulate pollutant...
King, Sara Hello, As someone who is very concerned about global warming and our carbon output, I would like to see this plan strengthened in the following ways: (1) Increase Energy Conservation. (2) The...
Kintzele, James Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all ...
Kirchner, Roger Keep up the good work.
Kirkham, Jesse The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Kish, Lester A. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Klebl, Susan The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Klempel, Rachel The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Klopp, Mrs. Basey RE: Draft 6th Power and Conservation Plan I am writing to urge you to create a final plan that provides our region with a path to meet growing power needs, wean us from dirty coal, bring endangered...
Klure, Justin Attached please find comments submitted on behalf of Pacific Energy Ventures.
Knapek, Kevin The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Knapp, Kristan B. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft Sixth Power Plan. I appreciate your attention to renewable resources and energy conservation as the foundation for a sustainable energy future. Y...
Knight, Katie The time to rely on coal as an energy source is past. We need to phase it out asap because the greenhouse gasses are threaten to destroy the habitability of our planet. Reduce CO2 emissions by sett...
Knodt, Michael I am writing in the hopes that the NWPCC 20 year energy plan 1 will enact actions which reduce carbon emissions. Merely stabilizing pollution is not enough to avoid the severe impacts coal power plan...
Kohler, William Lee Ultimately Solar Power Satellites are the only limitless and non polluting source of electricity that we can develop and that can supply the worlds energy needs without producing warming. It's an ide...
Kohout, Carolynn "Clean Power can profitably become economically advantageous by partnering solar equipment businesses with city and county government to attach solar panels on all civic buildings. This means schools...
Kohout, Carolynn "The system needs to build their own wind mills/wind machines like those that were put to use in CA. It is important to reconfigure our power sourcing to put in place alternate ways of energy using t...
Koller, Carson The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Komisar, M. The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Konigsberg, David To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Korenko, Dr. Michael I am troubled by the lack of recognition in this report of nuclear power. Hydro-electric, wind, solar and nuclear are the old green options. The dams are limited to their current capacity, solar ...
Korter, Sharon The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Kovalicky, Tom Lets take a good hard look at Habitat instead of Hatcheries, and couple that with the Electricity producing technology of the future. We can have both....... tom Kovalicky
Krasnowsky, Frank The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Krochmal, Greg Coal power as we know today is very dirty and contributes to a lot of negative greenhouse problems that we cannot afford to continue for us or our grand children and their grand children, it must be s...
Kruer, Curtis And Stephanie We ask that you ensure a clean energy future for the Northwest by requiring that the NWPCC’s final plan: 1. Preserves strong energy efficiency and renewable energy targets 2. Sets goals to reduc...
Krumper, Michael It would be very desireable to invest in the development of wave power off the Oregon Coast. It is also desireable to decrease the use of coal because of its high carbon emission. Were new carbon scri...
Kundiger, Marjorie We need to take serious Action now. No nuclear power plants until we have a safe place for waste-not just promises.
Lagergren, Ginna and Ken Subject: Sources of Power Please decrease, (even more than planned), the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Please use more solar and wind and geothermal to make power. Also, please encourage ...
Laieski, Caleb The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Laitner, Larry To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Lamar, Dylan It is reassuring that the Power Plan is taking such a firm stance in recognizing energy efficiency as the least-cost option to decrease energy demand. I urge you to go further to draft a plan whic...
Lamb, Eli Mark - I strongly feel we need to be more proactive in reducing our use of coal. Recent developments have opened up new reserves of natural gas that leads me to believe we can rely upon it as a transi...
Lane, David Oregon law calls for a 75-percent cut in 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. If we are to reach that goal, we must start now to wean our power industry off of the use of coal. Please chart a co...
Lanoff, Howard Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electricity in the Northwest...
Lanskey, Marcus J. I applaud your goal of meeting all new electricity needs over the next 20 years with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and no new fossil-burning power plants. In particular, with the aggress...
Lara, Peggy Dear Mark Walker, While I certainly appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, I would like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, par...
Larco, Dorothy Dear Me. Walker: For a number of years I've been paying something like $7 a month extra on my electric bill in order to support Portland General Electric's investing in solar and wind power. Obviou...
Leach, Elizabeth A. Mark Walker Director, Public Affairs Northwest Power & Conservation Council Portland OR Dear Mr. Walker and Council, Please do not consider coal as a source of energy in the future. Coal is a ...
Leary, Victoria The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Legry, John We can’t afford the fiction of “clean” coal anymore. Coal is dirty. It cannot be cleaned within the foreseeable future by any known technology - all lies, wishful thinking and futuristic theory cert...
Legry, John The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Lehman, Eric The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Leinova, Avery The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Lesley, Dawn Please strengthen this plan's emphasis on a statewide transition away from coal, starting right away! Coal is not the future, and so-called "clean coal" is an oxymoron, just ask the folks living near...
Levin, Brian Future generations deserve our attention to the details that will impact their lives.
Lewis, Bob We should continue to use coal. It is plentiful and efficient! Coal is a great fuel and until we can get nuclear power plants past the wacko's coal is a great second choice!
Lewis, Marilyn Just a short plea to the Power and Conservation Council: Please phase out dirty coal plants. Let's find cleaner ways to power this state. Thank you. Marilyn Lewis, Port Townsend, Wash.
Lifton, David It is high time to put a lid on coal emissions and the most effective way to do that is to reduce the amount of coal we burn. As far as I know there is no "clean" way to use coal for electricity produ...
Light, Ted I am happy to see the new power plan seek to meet additional load growth through efficiency. The Council should, however, be leading the discussion and analysis to determine what is necessary to meet...
Linda De Sitter, MD We appreciate that you are supporting renewable energy BUT please alos push to cut CO2 emmisions! This means getting rid of EXISTING coal power plants. Thank you.
Lindberg Bogaard, Amy To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Lindholdt, Dr. Paul Restoring healthy populations of salmon and steelhead is important to the ecology and quality of life in our region, and critical to the fishing businesses and communities in the Northwest and across ...
Lindsey, Joel The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Linton, Joann Lets stabilize carbon emissions by meeting virtually all of our new electricity needs over the next 20 years with energy efficiency and renewable energy. America & the world needs to reduce our carbo...
Littlewood, Ann Oregon needs to move away from coal and the pollution it creates. More specifically, it is past time to close down PGE's Boardman plant, the major source of air pollution in the Columbia Gorge. Please...
Locklear, Clyde Alan The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's draft plan is totally unacceptable in its continuing reliance on coal-powered electricity generation. Coal, which produces 23 percent of the region’s el...
Logan, Catherine The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Logan, Dr. Jesse The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Lokan, Kim It is good to see that the report recommends increasing energy efficiency and conservation as a means of meeting future demand as well as reducing CO2 emissions. I would like to see the report provid...
Lommasson, Cynthia A major reduction in dependence on coal must be considered in any plan concerning our energy future. Coal creates a disproportionate amount of pollution. We must invest in totally clean alternatives f...
Louchard, O'Neill There is no such thing as "clean coal" and due to the toxicity in the air from them, I support closing coal-powered plants. This does not mean I support nuclear plants. Wind, solar, hydro, and findi...
Louden, Jeanene These are difficult times to be charting an energy future. The polarization between those who think current generation methods are known and reliable and those who think it is time to take a leap into...
Lovejoy, Patricia And Michael To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Lucas, Lisa Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electricity in the Northwest ...
Lunte, Paul It's time to plan on eliminating coal power plants entirely and replace the lost production by developing renewable, green energy sources and increasing energy efficiency standards. Including coal pow...
Lyman, Debbie I will make my comments very short. I do not want to see the creation or expansion of coal fired power plants. I want goals to be met for renewable energy and I want you to set strong targets for le...
Lynch, Erin Dear Mark Walker, I have been following the Northwest Power ans Conservation Council's Power Plan and I commend you on the focus of energy efficiency and renewable energy. However, I would like to...
Mackey, Jim The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Mackie, Peggy The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Madison, Bartley N. Puget Sound Energy has hit the nail on the head. They said in their comments: "The council should consider "responsible" Nuclear generation. Additional coal plants without carbon capture and seques...
Magne, Robert To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Maher, Cindy I appreciate you efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, but I would like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions. Thank you!
Mainwaring, Edward This plan should include a provision for the removal of the four lower Snake River dams. This is deemed necessary for Salmon recovery by most scientists that have examined the issue. Salmon are part...
Marceron, Dennis I am pleased that you all are looking to maximize efficiency standards and how to implement the use of new, energy efficient equipment. However, stabilizing current global warming emmissions is not e...
Marshall, Sharon To the committee: Your efforts are much appreciated, but the time to wind down our coal powered electric plant in Boardman is now. We can't afford to continue to pollute and have a responsibilitly t...
Marshall, Thomas As a Seattle City Light customer, I would like to see the northwest's electricity come from renewable and clean sources. This is our opportunity to close the existing coal plants. They're always going...
Martin, Ron Help put the Northwest on the right track toward a clean energy future! The draft plan would stabilize carbon emissions by meeting virtually all of our new electricity needs over the next 20 years ...
Martin, Ron To the members of the NPCC: As a resident if the Oacific Northwest, I am writing to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal ...
Martynowych, Denis see attached
Maskus, James & Kristen The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Matera, Stephen To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Matthews, Dr Jonathan The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Matthews, Jonathan C. The Northwest has an abundance of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources that will help the region meet future energy demand without impairing clean water and air. NWPCC'S final plan should ...
Maunder, Jim Comments to the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council on their 6th Power Plan, October 13, 2009 Introduction I’m Jim Maunder, Manager of Member Services, Ravalli County Electric Coopera...
Maynard, Linda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Mazzarella, Jo Ann I applaud the elements of the plan regarding eliminating coal-generated electricity in the Northwest. The carbon dioxide emitted by coal plants is contributing to the destruction of our planet and dam...
Mcbride, Dennis Oregon law calls for a 75-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a figure the council has determined will only be reached with a virtual elimination of coal from the power system. And while ...
McCann, Al Move on and help Washingyon State to become GREEN and to reduce greenhouse gasses and to get away from Coal Energy - which produces CO-2. Get rid of the Coal burning energy plants. Make Washington St...
Mcclay, Mauria Let’s keep coal out of our energy future A draft power and conservation plan from the region’s official power-planning agency gets plenty right in its vision of the next 20 years: The Northwest Pow...
Mccracken, Mary I'm in disbelief that we are continuing to ruin places by extracting coal and then polluting the air by burning it when we should be repowering with solar, wind, geothermal. I have solar collectors f...
Mccracken, Rhiannon While I appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, I think it is very important that we see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions. Without the eli...
Mcdonald, James While I commend you for your work on efficiency goals, I must add my voice as an advocate for eliminating our use of coal. I for one am willing to pay higher rates for a cleaner environment. Please he...
McElfresh, Stephen ---------------------------------- To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It...
McGaughy, Loann To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Mcgilvra, Mary We need to start eliminating the use of coal and it pollution from our region and we need to start doing it now. Coal should be aggressively eliminated starting immediately. Our region needs to dedi...
McGlone, Colleen The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Mcgowan, Wendy S. To the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. Its proposal to ...
Mcgrath, Lincoln coal is so 19th century. seriously.
Mcguire, Timothy M To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
McHugh, Alexandria I care very much about the environment and our home. I appreciate the work you are doing to protect us, and hope this will eliminate the use of coal.
Mcintyre, Jenifer To the members of the NPCC: Hi. Yes, I live in Seattle, but my view would be the same no matter where I lived in the Pacific Northwest. Please, we can make stronger changes at a faster pace. Peo...
Mclaughlin, William C. I'm writing to ask you to add my voice and opinions for your Draft 6th Plan. I would like to advocate for the following points and acctions: First, the phasing out of coal fired plants. There ...
Mcnamara, Rebecca The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Mcwilliams, Jon Dear Mark: As we move in the direction of using alternative energy, it is time to reduce facilities that continue to have high levels of pollution. That is definitely true with the Boardman Power Pla...
Medeiros, Sylvia I am urging Mark Walker to not maintain the status quo to further cut carbon emissions and phase out coal power. thank you.
Medley, Jay And Elizabeth The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's plan to meet our region’s rising electricity demand is definitely forward-looking, with impressive efficiency standards and new clean energy, including n...
Melville, Beth The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Mensing, Kathy The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Merkel, Alison The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Merrill, Rodney L. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council draft power and conservation plan gets plenty right in its vision of the next 20 years but it does not go far enough if we are serious about eliminating di...
Merrill, Sarah Dear Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 6th Northwest Power and Conservation Plan. I applaud the goal of no net increase in CO2 emissions and...
Merryman, Nancy Dear Council Members, Please take on the coal plant issue and make eliminating coal-powered electricy plants a priority. This issue will only get solved if we force the issue on all fronts and is ...
Messenger, Tom Council, While I really appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, but it be a better plan if it were fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions. Specifically,...
Michaels, Christopher We want the Council to adopt a clean Regional Power Plan. Please also cut back on coal which will also reduce CO2 emissions.
Michele Blankenheim The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Micheletti, Dustin The 20-year plan looks great, but more needs to be done to eliminate our dependence on coal power, whether by closing gross-polluters like Boardman, or by heavily subsidizing alternative power sources...
Millage, Michael We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research it is too late to avoid significant warming in this century but we could blunt...
Miller, Eric R see attached
Miller, Glenn The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Miller, John To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Miller, Robin Good job with the efforts to increase renewable energy in Oregon and making energy production more effecient. I would also like to see less dependence on coal power. It is just too polluting. Thanks, ...
Milliken, Gerry Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electricity in the Northwest...
Mills, Ashea The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Minchew, Jackie All that you will hear about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rather simply stabalizing them, is true and reason enough to begin phasing out coal as an energy generating source in Washingt...
Mintkeski, Walt I wish to congratulate the Northwest Power and Conservation Council for producing a draft power and conservation plan for the next 20 years which calls for meeting our region's electricity demand with...
Mintz, Sara The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Misley, Ryan To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Mobeck, Melissa The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Moehling, Kelly We need to get away from coal as an energy source. It causes too much pollution for the gain. We should utilize cleaner sources of energy.
Monheim, Jeff Montana stands at an important juncture in the arena of energy development. She can bow under to pressure from the coal industry to continue harvesting this dirty, CO2 emitting mineral "because it is ...
Monroe, Molly To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Montana Environmental Information Center
Montana Public Service Commission See attached comments.
Montgomery, Edith This is a good plan as far as it goes but coal needs to be eliminated as a power source. You can draw up a plan that will be a leader in the nation.
Moore, Margaret I want stronger efficiency standards and I don't want coal. BPA still uses coal. The sky is falling re: carbon dioxide - there is too much in the air. See: The United Nations Scientists' Report ...
More, Janie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Morgan, Dr susan The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Morgan, Juliana The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Moriarty, Eric The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Morley, Donald The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Morris, Arvia The 6th power plan for the Northwest seems comprehensive in that is discusses the human energy needs of the region in the context of the need to reduce greeen house gas emmissions and restore habitat ...
Morris, Arvia Fossil fuels are ruining our climate. I support measures which reduce or eliminate our dependance on fossil fuels in the Northwest and in the nation. I support clossing coal buring power plants and ...
Moulton, Francis To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Mountaineers Sorry, not sure you system liked the filename in my previous attempt, so I am trying again.
Mr. Shelley D. Dahlgren, PhD To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Mueller, Gary To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Mulhbradt, Bruce The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Murray, Susan The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Musser, Mallory see attached
Myers, Jo Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electricity in the Northwest ...
Nahill, Brad I'd like to applaud the Council's recommendations to meet new electricity needs over the next 20 years with no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, investing in efficiency, and promoting renewabl...
Nash, Heyward The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Nash, Janet To the Northwest Power and Conservation Council: Your work is appreciated, but not finished. The plan needs to go further. The million-ton elephant in the council’s room is coal, which produces 23...
Naze, Christopher Every time that the entrenched status quo has told Americans that something cannot be done, Americans find a way to do it. When we discovered that fleurocarbons were eating a whole in the ozone, indu...
Neer, Steven REMOVE COAL FROM OREGON'S ENERGY MIX. This source is much to dirty!
Neil Mages, ND 1)Coal, which produces 23 percent of the region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of the region’s pollution. 2)Oregon law calls for a 75-percent cut in 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
Nelson, Guy; Team Lead, Utility Geothermal Working Group Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Sixth Power Plan. There is no discussion on the economics of geothermal heat pumps and their potential benefits to meeting the Region's energy ef...
Nelson, Kris The power plan should be applauded for its emphasis on the untapped resource value of energy efficiency available to offse the need for new generation and, potentially, for replacement of the dirtiest...
Nelson, Thomas & Marianne The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Newlin, John K. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Newman II, Will I urge you to take a good plan and complete it to make it a great plan. A clear, rational, scientific evaluation shows that coal cannot be a part of any rational energy future. It is dirty, heavily...
Newman, Joe We need much more clean energy for the Northwest and Nuclear is not clean so I am talking about wind, solar and conservation. Conservation is not getting anywhere near the attention it deserves. W...
Newton, Jason The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Noble, Steve To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Noe, Phillip Thanks for your work to reduce our emissions. We must do more to protect the only habitat our future generations will have. I was shocked to hear that coal fired plants spew out 87% of our region's ...
Noland, Stacy see attached
Nordt, Kevin
Norman T. Baker, PhD Dear Members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Norris, Dr. Kaye The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Norsen, Bob We lived in Seattle the prior 51 years, until last year. We are still affected by what Seattle does to our ecology. Seattle is in a unique area where suitable GEOTHERMAL heat energy is available...
Northwest Energy Efficiency Council see attached
Northwest Food Processors Association
Northwest Gas Association
Northwest Requirements Utilities
Northwest Resource Information Center See attached
Northwest River Partners RiverPartners’ comments on the draft power plan are enclosed.
NorthWestern Energy See attached. (Technically submitted before the comment period began, so wasn't part of the online collection of comments until we re-reviewed all submissions in Sep 2010.)
Nuessle, William and Charlotte We appreciate your good work on energy efficiency and renewables but what is also really needed is a focus on cutting greenhouse emissions. Such as coal.
Nuessle, William and Charlotte o the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for...
Nunez, Kelsey I'd like to start out by saying that I support the plan and it's move way from new fossil fuel production--we cannot afford (economically, socially, or environmentally) to continue to rely on fossil f...
NW Energy Coalition see attached
NWEC and SOS
O'brien, Don To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
O'steen, Barbara To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
O’Neil, Carol The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Olson, Cathy To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Onward Oregon One year ago the ship flipped over. If there had been no-one left that cared about God and Earth there would be nothing left to save anywhere in short order, even, by now perhaps. The time for sense...
Oregon Department of Energy
Oregon Interfaith Power and Light, A project of Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Oregon Wild We urge the council to emphasize energy conservation and non-hydro renewables to meet energy demand. Climate change makes this path so important. New energy from coal or LNG must be avoided. Hydro is ...
Oset, Robert see attached
Ost, John Andrew To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Ostrer, Allison I want clean energy developed in the northwest. That means moving away from fossil fuels AND nuclear energy. Converting to nuclear energy would be like quitting tobacco to take up crack. What we need ...
Otis, Anne Please, close down all coal plants as soon as possible. It is possible and necessary. Thank you.
Oxford, Rex To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Pace, Charles see attached
Pacific Power see attached
Paden, Charles The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Panagoulis, Kadin The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Parker, J.T. The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Parkinson, Kitsie Thank you for the work you have done to start to turn us toward a better energy future. The emphasis you have put on efficiency and development of renewable energy sources is admirable! However, the...
Parrish, Elaine " I want to urge the Council to adopt a clean regional Power Plan and to get away from coal completely. "
Partridge, Dixie & Jerry As energy demands and costs have gone up consistently, one of our biggest concerns is that in the effort to encourage and increase conservation in the use of less energy, the "powers that be" would co...
Pasquiou, Thierry There is no such thing as clean coal. Reducing the emissions by stockpiling large quantities of extremely toxic chemicals which eventually may leak is not a viable option for coal burning. There are a...
Patchell, Rebecca The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Paul, Alex I feel the dams should be removed on the Snake River to allow salmon to spawn there again. The dams are old and inefficient and I agree with the CCA position below. The beauty of conservation through ...
Pauley, Stephen M Sirs, Power production from the four lower Snake Dams is out of synch with power needs. You have maximum reservoir storage in spring when little power is needed, and minimum storage in summer and f...
Paulsen, James I'll be brief. I am concerned about climate warming, a compounding and growing issue on Montana forests, trout streams and rivers, and its world impact. Reducing coal-bruning power plants needs to be ...
Paylor, Stephen The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Peach, Hugh Gilbert see attached
Pemble, James I would like to urge Director Walker to expedite the creation of a clean and green regional power plan for the northwest corner of our country. I'd like to see Washington take the lead in this effort...
Peres, Todd Urging you to shut down the filthy Boardman plant as well as the other PGE coal fired facilities in Montana.
Perez, Martha I am a former employee of Bonneville Power Administration, Energy Efficiency office, of the Portland branch. I would like to dedicate this testimony, in memory and honor of all victims of Hurricanes K...
Perrotti, Edward David The facts are clear, indeeed. We can do more for the planet and ourselves by simply reducing the energy footprint that we all have. First and foremost, any emisson reductions begin at home. Surely...
Peterson, Beau We have the resources, the know how, and the ethical obligation to move quickly away from coal as a source of energy. Please do the right thing and look at the amazing opportunities in alternative fo...
Petrofsky, Erica The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Phillips, Stuart To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Phillips, Stuart The plan does nothing to actually reduce our carbon emissions or lessen our current dependence on the coal-fired power plants that account for nearly 90% of our electric system’s global-warming emissi...
Pierce, Wilbur As a citizen of Washington, I'm not an expert on how to solve the complex power planning issues we face. However, I would like to make my voice heard in what I feel the plan needs to accomplish (bey...
PNGC Power
PNUCC We have reviewed your draft Power Plan and provide the attached response for your consideration. This draft reflects a tremendous amount of time and effort of Council members and staff combined - an...
Poirier, J. I would like the Council for the Draft Power Plan to be based on the truth of our resources, not our pocketbooks. Specifically we have to cut CO2 emissions and face the reality of water shortage. I ...
Polarity Center of Salem Close Boardman and develop Solar energy power stations here in Oregon... Our air and watyer have been compromised long enough...PGE should bear the brunt of the cost...I am a shareholder also. Public...
Polcyn, Dr. Iam The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
PolicyInteractive see attached
Polk, Nora Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Your very good draft could become a great plan. It can build on its already-solid foundation of efficiency and clean energy and build toward a low-carbon e...
Pollock, Thomas I live and vote in Portland, OR. I would like you to know that my family and I do our best to conserve energy, recycle, and support clean, renewable energy for a decent future for us all. Please inclu...
Post, Randall Stay environmental and as green as you mpossibly can!
Poulsen, Pamela The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Powell, Erik The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Powers, Kelly We need to close the coal fired plants for many reasons - pollution, pollution and pollution. It hurts our lungs and air, it spoils Mt. Rainier National Park, it gets in our water and food-chain. We m...
Poyourow, Michelle Director Walker, Please consider strengthening the greenhouse gas reduction targets and incentives in the next power and conservation plan. I am willing to pay a little more for my own electrici...
Prentiss, Alex Thank you for your efforts to encourage energy efficiency. I believe the job now is to focus on renewables and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. To that end I urge you to phase out all coal gen...
Public Power Council see attached
Public Utility District No. 1 of Cowlitz County, Washington
Puget Sound Energy Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 6th Power Plan. Please find Puget Sound Energy’s attached comments.
Puich, Renate M. see attached
Pushkara To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Quinlan, Sean To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Quinn, Larry Sadly, coal is the culprit.
Raether, Paul I appreciate your efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, but would like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions, i.e. phase out coal ASAP if not sooner. ...
Ransel, Katherine Dear Council Members: I was delighted to hear that the Council has demonstrated that we need no new fossil-fueled power plants and has proposed to meet the next 20 years of Northwest electric deman...
Raunig, Christi The 6th draft of the plan is not bold enough. Please consider taking a more determined stance on the future of our area including increasing conservation efforts and discouraging coal plant operation...
Ravi, Rajaram Let us look forward and harness the forces of nature - solar, wind and geothermal to make energy the right way.. Civilizations thrived for centuries before the advent of Fossil fuels and coal..and wil...
Ray, Dr. John W. See attached.
Ray, Gisela The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Ray, Gisela Let's phase out the coal power plants. They are the dirtiest power producers around, cause illness and agravate haze. We can do better if we muster the will to really get serious with conservation and...
Raymond, Dolores The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Real, Marisa To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Redwine, Marilyn The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Reed, Jayne To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Rehn, Debra To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Reich, Dr Arnold Please begin to decrease our use of coal and fossil fuels. We should follow Europe and other progressive countries and also decrease our dependence on imported oil. Develop and foster new sources of...
Reichert, Cheryl We greatly appreciate being able to do net metering with the 2000 watt solar panels on our house. We feel good about generating clean energy, and we are pleased that while we are saving on our power b...
Renewable Northwest Project
Repp, Robert The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Republicans for Environmental Protection Please accept the following brief comments from Republicans for Environmental Protection (www.rep.org) regarding the draft Sixth Northwest Power Plan. We commend the council for its impressive draf...
Rhiger, Daniel Dear Mark Walker, We must guard this precious resource and economic resource, one of the world.s best food sources, and keep it plentiful for the generations to come. We are capable of produci...
Richards, Ron To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Richardson, Gail & John The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Rider, Barbara I'd like to see Washington state help individuals with purchase of small solar or wind powered solutions with more tax credits and rebates. As an example, we live a few miles west of the foothills of...
Riener, Lisa Comments regarding the Draft 6th Power Plan: Thank you for taking these comments. As a Region, we must preserve and expand the 6th Power Plan draft. We must push for the plan’s clean energy targe...
Riener, Lisa Hello Mark Walker: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Many people have attended the public hearings on the draft Sixth Northwest Power and Conservation Plan. I support the region’s offici...
Ries, Shelley your work on energy efficiency and renewables is admirable, but we must also include a focus on reduction of current levels of greenhouse gasses
Riley, Erin I'm writing to implore you to consider removing the lower Snake River dams in an effort to increase green energy replacements and help in with wild salmon recovery. The salmon are dying in the Columbi...
Rimbos, Peter I believe the stated clean energy targets are good and feel they should be maintained, if not improved. It appears the draft plan would only stabilize, not reduce, greenhouse gas emissions, thus not w...
Rimbos, Peter I commend the Council on its draft plan since it emphasizes meeting nearly all the region's power needs through both energy efficiency and renewables. This could help stabilize our greenhouse gas emis...
Ritchie, Norm Thank you for this opportunity to be heard. The 6th Power Plan is generally a good plan, but it must go further and move faster. The Council must be a strong leader to craft a bright future for our...
Robinson, Julie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Robinson, Shane To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Rodine, Marcia It's time to restore the habitat for our salmon and steelhead by removing the four lower dams on the Snake River. Now is the time before it's too late. Thank you for your consideration and approval....
Rogers, Ruth The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Rogulja, Karen Magnuson I hope the Council will consider adopting a plan that reduces our CO2 pollution in accordance with the targets established by Northwest states and the scientific community. The final 6th Plan should...
Rokas, John The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Rolland, Seth I like your plan of meeting all new electric demand with energy efficiency and renewable energy. However i would like to see the plan encourage the closing of the coal fired plants that make so much ...
Rollins, Eldon I have heard a few lame-witted arguments implying that alternative energy would not be reliable enough to rely on. There is just barely enough validity to some to lend false credence to the whole. ...
Ronald W. Martin, Jr To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Roos, Carolyn This comment comes from CHP discussions emerging from within the RTF as a way to analyze CHP botrh both its efficiency gains and its power generation: Proposal to the Northwest Power Plan 1. Rec...
Roppo, Phil Dear Mr. Walker: I am sorry that I don't have the time to provide in depth comments to the Council on the Draft Sixth Northwest Power Plan, but I would at least like to make a few comments: 1. W...
Rose, Sarah The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Rose, Sarah The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Rosenthal, Gerritt To the NWPCC: You are to be commended for getting a start on the shift to cleaner and more sustainable energy. But it is clear that we have to do something about coal, if not in the immediate short t...
Rosin, Leah Dear Bill, Bruce, Joan, Tom, Dick, Rhonda and Jim, I am a native Oregonian, and I care about how our region is powered. I talk to too many people within this state who wrongfully assume that all o...
Ross, Fred I would like you to reconsider how the council is approaching coal burning as a source of energy. Everyone acknowledges that we cannot get to our goals in the next 20 - 30 years while still burning c...
Ruby, Kevin I agree with everything the Columbia and Snake Rivers Campaign says and does, including this statement: "Restoring healthy populations of salmon and steelhead is important to the ecology and quality o...
Russell, William P. To : Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) Thank you for a chance to give my input on the new Plan. In many ways, it is a good plan. The push for conservation and renewable power is e...
Ruston, Mitchell The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Rutherford, Mark To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. My name is Mark Rutherford and I own a fly fishing guide/ outfitting company "Wild River Guid...
Salazar, Monica The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Saletta, Antoinette The proposal from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council indicates our region’s rising electricity demand for new clean energy will be met with impressive efficiency standards, and without build...
Samela, Rastic The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Sammeth, Michele The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Samuel Jr., Terrence D. I am getting older and the future belongs to my children and grand children. I would like to leave them a legacy of good health and an environment that enhances their lives. Included in that desire is...
Sargent, George Dear Mr. Walker: Please take further efforts to reduce our usage of coal-based energy. The costs of using coal just aren't worth it, with all the pollution it creates.
Sargent, Martha This plan needs to go further. The million-ton elephant in the council’s room is coal, which produces 23 percent of the region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of the region’s pollution. The dra...
Sargent, Todd I appreciate their efforts on energy efficiency and focus on renewables, but would like to see those efforts fortified with a reduction in greenhouse emissions.
Saude, Debra J To whom this concerns, Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for el...
Saude, Debra J, Dear Council Members; Though the current draft of the 6th Power and Conservation Plan would stabilize carbon emissions by meeting virtually all of our new electricity needs over the next 20 years w...
Saylor, Julia M Thank you for considering my comments. In the NWPCC final plan, I feel strongly that the following should be reflected in the final NWPCC plan: At the top of my list is that coal-fired power plant...
Scarff, Steve Dear Sirs: The Draft Sixth Power Plan needs to establish targets that will greatly reduce our region's CO2 emissions, thereby doing our part to mitigate climate change due to greenhouse gases. One...
Schaad, Mary Hello; I live in Bozeman, MT and I'd like to express my support for the energy future that the 6th Power Plan prepares for and will help to create. Thank you for your inclusion of important points r...
Schlacter, Judith members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electri...
Schmidt, Mindy Oregon law calls for a 75-percent cut in 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a figure the council has determined will only be reached with a virtual elimination of coal from the power system. And...
Schneider, Jerry It seems to me that electrified transportation possibilities are not given nearly enough attention as a future driver of the demand for electricity. Plug-in hybrids are mentioned (barely) but there ar...
Schossau, Pamela We HAVE to make a change sooner rather than later, and reduction--or better yet, elimination--of use of coal is the change we can make that will have the biggest impact. Please plan to get coal out of...
Schreiber, James I have spent 45 years, as a field service engineer, in and around all forms of heavy industry in the United States and the world. I have seen first hand the good, the bad and the ugly of them all. ...
Schupbach, Sherry The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Schure, Linda Helding Hello: The following are my comments on the on Draft Sixth Power Plan. Thank you so much for this opportunity to comment and good luck. The Northwest has an abundance of energy efficiency and re...
Schwane, Walter To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. A proposal that meets demands for electricity in the Northwest through conservation and ren...
Scott, Steven Brian To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Scramlin, Sheryl The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Seabrook, Kathy Dear sirs and madams, When it comes to Carbon Dioxide, there is no such thing as clean coal. I would like to see real alternatives, like combination's of wind, solar, geothermal and of course t...
Seamons, Joe Thanks for your efforts, but your plan needs to go further. The elephant in the room is coal, which produces 23 percent of our region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of its pollution. Your draf...
Seattle City Light see attached
Sechrist, Shelley The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Selander, Spencer We need a plan that reduces carbon emissions, primarily by eliminating dependence on coal-fired power plants; while the draft 6th Power and Conservation Plan represents progress, it is inadequate. ...
Senic, Daniel see attached
Sennett, Clinton The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong ener...
Sennett, Clinton The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Sevaly, Jim The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Shade, Pat To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Shanklin, Monica The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Shapiro, David I appreciate the work you're doing to increase energy efficiency and your focus on renewable energy sources. But your plan needs to chart a path towards elimination of coal-burning plants. These plant...
Shawn, Susan Thank you for focusing, in your power plan, on renewable energy, and to some extent, clean energy. I appreciate that work, and support that direction. I think we probably also need to focus way more...
Shepherd, Lee I urge the use all energy resources, hydro, nuclear, and coal, to keep prices low during these trying economic times. Please reject the clearly partisan, opportunist, alarmist climate change nonsense...
Shewell, Jarom Thank you for this opportunity to comment. While the current draft plan is an encouraging start toward clean energy, sadly it falls far short. The time has long passed for half-measures and token re...
Shinn, Nancy Dear Sirs: Please increase our renewable energy options. Make them a priority. We can put many people to work building these facilities. And please take our coal powered plants out of commissi...
Shippey, Mike Oregon has a history of progressive environmental regulations, established in recognition of our outstanding landscapes. I believe further development of coal burning power plants in our state would ...
Shores, Karen Please work diligently to phase out coal fired plants.... We don't like to have our breathing air polluted. They are major contributors to Global warming which is upon us... not in the future. ...
Showalter, Glenn I support the position of the NW Energy Council.
Showalter, Thomas E Iam a retired science teacher . I grew up in northern Illinois in a home that was heated bt Bituminous coal. Most homes cooked on iether coal or wood fired stoves as the only gas available was propane...
Shurgot, Michael W. Dear NPCC: I have been active in environmental work for The Mountaineers and the Sierra Club for over 25 years in the Seattle area. Among the many issues I have worked on are expansion and protectio...
Siegel, Craig The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Siegle, Anne Adopt a final regional power plan that includes stronger efficiency standards, accounts specifically for the cost for carbon, and puts the NW on a path away from coal power.
Sierra Club see attached
Sierra Club supporters The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Sierra Club supporters The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Sierra Club supporters The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Sikes, Elizabeth To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. Its proposal to meet all new demand for...
Sikorski, Wade I strongly encourage Northwest to take the strongest measures to reduce climate change. My family owns a ranch in southeastern Montana, and it is very clear to me that we are already suffering harm f...
Sill, David M. The Final Plan absolutely must contain definite steps to remove the 4 Lower Snake River Dams. Studies have shown beyond any doubt that removal is economically and biologically sound and necessary with...
Silverberg, Aaron I have been an advocate for renewable energy generation for more than 30 years (since the Reagan administration dismantled the Carter administrations efforts to establish long-term alternative energy ...
Silverforb, Judith Oregon law calls for a 75-percent cut in 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a figure that will only be reached with a virtual elimination of coal from the power system. And while the no coal pla...
Simonsen, John To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Siren, Kevin Rec'd via voicemail: Please adopt a power plan that includes stronger efficiency standards, accounts specifically for the cost of carbon and puts the region on a path away from coal power.
Sjoding, David See 3 attachments
Sjoding, David Two of the attachments may not have made it into the system per the e-mail response - This may be duplicative here is the last of the 3 attachments
Sjoding, David Two of the attachments may not have made it into the system per the e-mail response - This may be duplicative
Skari, Arlo My family and I farm in north central MT approximately 20 miles from the Alberta border. We are concerned about the drying up of the west in the long run; It is touch and go now to get sufficient moi...
Skuja, Maris To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Slifer, E. Move away from fossil fuels and full steam ahead on renewables!
Smith, Brian The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Smith, Jeff We are entering an era that demands we change the way we generate and use energy. The era of cheap energy is over. And we should ensure that the United States never goes to war again to secure its ene...
Smith, Jerry We pay EWEB our utility to keep us green. NO ONE NEEDS TO SUFFER FROM AIR POLLUTION. THE WORLD IS IN GREAT DANGER NOW FROM CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE, COAL IS THE MAIN CONTRIBUTOR IN OREGON. NO MORE C...
Smith, Laurie A. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Smith, Robert D. I live in a small city by a river that has overflowed its banks twice in two years for the first time in a half century. The cause was torrential rains so great that the dam created to control them wa...
Snake River Alliance Comments to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council on Draft Sixth Power Plan by Snake River Alliance November 6, 2009 On behalf of the Snake River Alliance, its membership and its Board of ...
Sneddon, Sharon I think we are heading in the right direction, but hope the coal plant in Centralia can be phased out soon. Energy needs must be met entirely with renewable sources such as wind, solar, tidal, and oth...
Snohomish Public Utility District See attached.
Snyder, David A. The draft Northwest Power and Conservation Council power and conservation plan is on target in its plan to meet our region’s rising electricity demand with efficiency standards and new clean energy, ...
Solomon, Arthur I am worried about coal. Is there anyway to get away from the coal power? Perhaps we could charge for carbon emissions. The costs for carbon emissions should be higher.
Sondhi, Gunthild To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Spearing, Joan I urge you to make a good plan better.
Speers, Alice & Doug The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Spencer, Barbara Coal is dirty. Please make the council's energy plan clean and green.
Spiecker, Katya To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Spitz, Paul The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Springfield Utility Board
Stahl, Charlotte To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Stanik, Valerie Thank you for your good work. Please consider that we need to decrease greenhouse gases in our region for the most effective strategy to fit with increasing renewable energy sources.
Stansbury, Katherine Anne Now, not in the year 2030, is the time to start planning our exit from a coal-dependent energy policy. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s very good draft could become a great plan. It c...
Stark, John M Do not go out on limb and rely too much on new green energy systems.
Steele, Kaye Please continue to work on this further as we need really clean fuel.
Steffen, Alex Our region's commitment to clean energy and limiting greenhouse gas emissions are laudable, but we need to go farther. We need to become the nation's leader in greenhouse gas reductions in the energy ...
Steitz, Jim I write to urge Northwest Power and Conservation Council to make more aggressive use of efficiency and conservation to cut the region’s use of fossil fuels. These cuts must be as rapid and aggressive ...
Stempf, Debbie My whole family and my grandparents before our generation enjoyed the outdoors with clean water and air. This enjoyment includes the animals and fish inherent in the system. We need to have thes...
Stephen, Amy The overwhelming preponderence of credible science shows that greenhouse-gas buildup has the potential to drastcally destabilize weather and, thereby, entire bioregions. This being the case, PGE's dec...
Stevens, Henry Coal is one of the most polluting forms of energy that we use today. Between the potential negative effects of global warming, and the need to find new and better energy sources for the future in any ...
Stewart, Deborah Dear Mark Walker, As a 30-year resident of Washington and with children and grandchildren here, I feel very strongly that we must not only prevent increased green-house gas pollution, but reduce our ...
Stewart, Eugene We need more energy. We should look at all sources and pick the sources that are proven. Hydro-make the dams fish friendly. Nuclear-If it works so well in France, why not here? Coal-Our most abund...
Stewart, Lon I support your efforts to increase the Northwest’s available energy through energy efficiency/conservation measures and renewable energy technologies. The Plan could be more forward thinking by requi...
Stewart, Margaret Macdonald Northwest Power and Conservation Council members, My name is Margaret Macdonald Stewart and I've lived in Ketchum, Idaho for 38 years. After reading much of your recent draft Power Plan I have only...
Stolzberg, Karen Even if coal is scrubbed and tidied up as much as possible, there is no way around the devastating environmental damage done by the extraction. There are alternatives. Let's get smart about our ...
Strauss, Catherine Would like to urge Northwest Power to decrease C02 emmissions and move away from coal power.
Streeter, Dave Dear Northwest Power and Conservation Council, I am very concerned about climate change. I believe that the costs in cash and intangibles that more volatile weather will incur are far greater than...
Streng, Ramie Thank you for what energy efficiency and renewable programs you are supporting, I'm just hoping you can work to strengthen cutting emissions of fossil fuels and help reduce climate changing effects of...
Strothkamp, Dr. Ken The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Stumbo, Lava\onne "I want to urge the Council to adopt a clean regional power plan. "
Sukkau, Nicholas To Whom It May Concern: Please initiate policy that supports Oregon's law that calls for a 75-percent cut in 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. To do this, we must completely eliminate our r...
Sunrise, Elizabeth Anne I'm concerned that a dirty coal plant is in our region. We need to reduce global warming emissions and stop using dirty coal for our energy needs. Many signs of global warming are occuring around th...
Surdi, Leonard As the leading signature gatherer for the clean energy initiative for Whatcom County back in 2007 I kept on hearing from all types of people (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) that now is the ...
Susan, Bennett Did the coal plant emissions cause my cancer or my neighbors breast cancer? How about my friends child's birth defect? Maybe. It's possible, even probable or likely, who can be certain? What scienc...
Suter, Paul Northwest Power and Conservation Council: Conservation and other measures are great in our efforts to reduce energy consumption. However, I urge you to be as strong, clear and far-sighted when it ...
Swan, Linda To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Swan, Linda We need to end our reliance on coal and move toward more sustainable, clean energy resources • We applaud the Council for showing we need no new fossil-fueled power plants and for proposing to meet ...
Swanson-davies, Linda Thank you so much for your efforts to focus on renewables and energy efficiency, but we need a big reduction in green house emissions NOW, please, and certainly need to get out of coal ASAP!
Swenson, Chris To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Switalski, Adam To whom it may concern, I am writing to support a clean energy future for the northwest. As you know, coal power plants emit large amounts of greenhouse gases into the environment which...
Switzer-tatum, Paulette M. The coal industry needs to be cleaned up and greened up before it gets my support. Mountaintop removal mining has to stop - it ruins communities and environments. These elements have to be factored in...
Szynskie, Mary Kay It is no longer necessary to rely on coal burning for our generation of electricity. it is the least responsible way to create electricity. We do have it in our capacity to stop polluting with coal bu...
Tacoma Power Please see Tacoma Power's comments attached.
Taylor, Amanda The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Taylor, Amary B. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Taylor, John To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Taylor, Llew The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Taylor, Mason We don't need to burn coal.
Teherani-Ami, Sima The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Templar, Janet We need a better plan than this
Thayer, Judith The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Thompson, Gerald To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Thompson, Martin E. We are very fortunate indeed to have the natural resosurses, such as the Columbia River, natural wind and a fair amount of solar, in the Pacific Northwest. We have imported coal from outside the regi...
Thompson, Sylvan To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Three Pines Neighborhood Association Dear Mr. Walker: Energy alternatives to coal are becoming more cost feasible. Bio-fuels are (finally!) being shown NOT to provide a positive return on our investments, whereas solar and wind ARE p...
Thrower, Ashley Coal produces 23 percent of the region’s electricity but spews out 87 percent of the region’s pollution. Your draft plan, admirably aggressive in its pursuit of energy efficiency and renewable-energy ...
Thurman, Carolyn The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Tiffany, Greg To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Till, Richard Mr. Walker, I applaud the Northwest Planning Council on its decision to take global warming seriously and focus energy planning on conservation, efficiency, and renewables. The Council can still ma...
Till, Richard To the members of the NPCC: I previously submitted comment on the 6th Power Plan. These comments supplement my prior submission. Of particular importance, this supplemental comment explains the nee...
Timmons, Jack Please go back to the drawing board and do what was asked of you. Produce a plan that will reach 75% reduction in contaminants. That means finding a way to phase out all coal fired power production ...
Tipperman, Mark I am writing to urge you to prohibit the use of coal to meet the areas's energy requirements. The adverse consequences of coal are too severe and cannot be mitigated.
Tomlanovich, Anne The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Torrence, Paul F. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Towanda, Trisha To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. Thanks for your work to come up with a plan to meet the electricity needs of the Northwest ...
Trauth, Melissa The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Trembley, Andrea The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Trembly, Andrea The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Trieschamann, Mary The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Trimmer, Rosemary • We applaud the Council for showing we need no new fossil-fueled power plants and for proposing to meet the next 20 years of growing Northwest electric demand with 5,800 average megawatts of new e...
Trojan, Liz Yes, let's close Boardman. Next let's form a People's Utility District. We'll all benefit from lower rates.
Trolinger, Charlotte Conservation and renewable energy sources are at a developmental stage whereby it’s feasible for us to meet the energy challenges of the next 20 years as we MUST if we want our children’s children to ...
Trout Unlimited see attached
Troyer, Tony The benefits of cheap, on-demand energy are undeniable. Every modern convenience was created by some form of it. As long as there is a solution to continue delivering it, I will be supporting it. Gove...
Truman, Kessley The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Tucker, Laurie To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Uphill, Thomas R. I understand the issues with power generated coal. I do know that a more holistic view of coal is necessary. High qualitity coking coal at least for the short term is necessary of the production of st...
Vailmackin, Richard J. Please work to eliminate fossil fuels. Thank you.
Valigura, Anita thank you for this opportunity to comment. i am an ordinary citizen( 60yr old widowed grandmother). i happen to be very commited to seeing renewable energy and reduced carbon. i also pay carbon credit...
Valum, Ben To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Van Fleet, Doug The Council's draft Sixth Power Plan needs to include cuts to carbon dioxide emissions and address the problem of coal power. The draft plan needs two additional pieces: 1) It needs to address climat...
Van Laeken, Donna The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Van Sant, Julie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Vanek, Josh I applaud the planning processy NWE's undertaken, and appreciate the service the company provides. As a customer, I've listed my top three priorities below: 1) I'd like NWE to preserve strong energ...
Varnau, David No to coal fired power plants in Washington. As interim source of fuel while renewable energy sources are coming on line, why not natural gas instead of coal--in view of all of the natural gas deposi...
Vasko, Bruce The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Veirs, Scott It saddens me that the complete power plan PDF itself does not even include the words “orca” or “killer whale.” Yet again, our regional iconss -- the endangered southern resident killer whales --are...
Villaume, John M. Please. It's time to recognize that we can't continue to suffocate ourselves. And coal does that. It's pollution suffocates me. I have asthma. I moved back to my home in Oregon from Egypt. Let me t...
Villaume, Mary Lyn I am very impressed with how much electricity the plan proposes to save through conservation and expansion of renewable energy sources. I am expremely disappointed that the current plan does not ma...
Villinger, Beverly The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Vinny It is time to build more nuclear, geothermal and wave energy plants to meet the ever-growing power demands here in Oregon. In addition, invest in more biomass plants instead of solar and wind power p...
Vo, Jackie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Voeller, Estelle The Council is to be commended for its very solid foundation for future clean energy and conservation plan. Now please make it stronger by addressing the high levels of greenhouse gas emitted by coal...
Vogel, Mary I'm sorry I could not stay to testify verbally last night as I had signed up to do. Due to a recent injury, my own energy was flagging badly and I still needed to walk home. Here's what I had planne...
Voss, Britta To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Wadsworth, John The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Wagner, LiDona Thanks for all the work you've done. Please go one stept further and eliminate coal.
Walker, Fern The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Walker, John I haven't read your proposal, but I would like to encourage use of clean energy and conservation.
Wallis, Angela Please revise the power plan so that it enables the reduction of green house gas emissions, especially those from our coal plants. Thank you, Angela Wallis
Walraven, William The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Warren A Bentley, MPhil, PhD, (Cantab) While I very much appreciate your work on promoting energy efficiency and the use of renewables, I know from my doctoral research in dendrochronology how important the reduction in greenhouse emission...
Washington Environmental Council
Washington PUD Association
Watson, Cecilia The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Watson, Vicki to: Northwest Power & Conservation Council members: Thank you for drafting a plan intended to stabilize carbon emissions by meeting all our new electricity needs over the next 20 years with energy...
Wayne, Lawrence The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Wchultz, William The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Webb, Dean To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Webb, Dean The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Webb, Randall The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Weber, James To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Weber, John I believe the plan is heading in the correct direction. Conservation and energy efficiency should be the heavy lifters. I believe renewable energy generation should be brought on-line as soon as possi...
Weintraub, Dana (Mr.) I encourage you to seriously consider the numerous benefits of emphasizing energy conservation, which carries more bang for the buck. We have literally squandered thirty some-odd y...
Welch, Joshua Cut ties w/ Coal.
Weliky, Carol Need to cut C02 emmissions further and move away from/phase out coal power - I know there's no magic bullet, but we need to start working on this now. Thank you.
Welsh, Bob To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Weltzien, Dr. O Alan The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Wendt, Jackie The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Wennlund, Karen Encourage Mr. Walker to adopt a clean energy plan, specifically to phase out coal and encourage renewables, and phase out nuclear power.
Wenz, Celeste The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
West Coast LLC Clean Energy, Clean Air!
West, Rusty Let's keep extremely focused on the fact that our decisions today, will affect our Children, Our Children's Children, and the very future of Planet Earth. The goal for now is to REDUCE global emiss...
Western Montana G&T
Westphal, Natasha The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Westphal, William The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
White, A. E. We need to move beyond the old ways afore year 2000 of dirty coal plants emitting decades of highly polluted aftermath, and instead put the region on course to close the dirty coal plants once and for...
White, Carol The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
White, Maria To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
White, Penelope Ever since the Carter administration I have been wanting to install solar power. This summer I finally had solar panels installed on my roof which should cover my electricity use - my home and water ...
White, Ward I wanted to urge the Council to adopt a clean Regional Power Plan. I won't go into anymore details about it, but I think it's extremely important that we have a clean Regional Power Plan and I think...
Whitmarsh, Stanley & Donna The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency t...
Wichar, Den Mark Save salmon. Take down the four dams. Power lost can easily be made up with alternative clean energy sources.
Wickham, Brooke K To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the chance to offer input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. Its proposal to meet all new demand for electri...
Wienker, Nancy Scott Warren Buffet's Corporation took down their damn in the Klamath watershed beginning in November of 2008. If Pacific Corp headed by Warren Buffett can see the wisdom in taking down damns in the Klamath...
Wiles, Nadine Thanks to the council for taking initiative on cleaning up Oregon's power supply to lessen the CO2 emissions. I would hope that you will take a closer look at the coal plant that supply energy, becau...
Wilhelm, Janus To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand fo...
Williams, P The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Willis, J. I am interested in methods that would lessen our CURRENT (not only future) dependence on coal-fired power plants for energy; as illustrated on page 10-9 of the online draft, coal power plants account ...
Willis, Peggy Re: Comments on Power Plan to NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. Its proposal to meet all new...
Wilson, Brian The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change, and improving our health and environment. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy efficiency tar...
Wing, Pierrette L. Mr. Walker, Please put teeth in our regional power plan, including stronger efficiency standards than we have now, accounting for the cost of carbon as a priority, and weaning ourselves (the Northwe...
Winnett, Sharon The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Winters, April To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Wittman, Therese To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Wolf, Joseph The problems caused by coal do not represent a reasonable risk in a world that so desperately needs to slash carbon immmissions. Let's put our money into renewables especially solar where we and the e...
Wong, Elaine The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...
Wong, Ella I would just like to support Mary Vogel's comments from Oct. 14, 2009. "NWPPC Testimony I'm Mary Vogel and I live in downtown Portland in a studio apartment where I have never paid more than $1...
Wood, Douglas I am writing to urge you to use the most energy efficient, least damaging to the environment, methods of power production, and to ensure that you push for as much greenhouse gas reduction as possible ...
Wood, John I was up in the hills above Dufur, Oregon today. I could see every detail on Mt Hood clearly. It is about 15 miles west. I could see Mt Adams clearly about 60 miles north, and behind it was Mt Rainier...
Woodall, Linda Any responsible action would include reducing the amount of harmful substances put into the air and water. I ask that you include provisions for reducing carbon emissions. Please take serious consid...
Woodfield, Marion Coal is only the answer if the technology is found to render it clean. If we can spend billions and billions on our war machine, fly to the moon, explore the universe (on and on), then surely we can f...
Woodruff, Liz November 6, 2009 Mark Walker, Director of Public Affairs Northwest Power and Conservation Council 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204. Dear Council Members and Staff of the NWP...
Wright, Linda A. To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Wright, Patti To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan is, in many respects, a good plan. It's proposal to meet all new demand ...
Wright, Peter Hi Thank you for accepting my comment There seems to me little doubt that climate change is real and is mostly cause by human action. We are wise to reduce the activities that contribute to greenhou...
Yake, Bill To the members of the NPCC: Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 6th Power Plan. The 6th Power Plan has its good points. It's proposal to meet all new demand for electricit...
Youngberg, Eric Dear Mark, I am unable to attend your important meeting on Wednesday. Please know that I am a firm believer in the cessation of coal burning energy plants. This type of mercury causing pollution ...
Yurk, Rick Let's take coal out of the picture completely, let's retrofit Boardman to use another fuel stock. Let's look at distributed power ideas, and natural gas or biofuel fuel cells. Let's be aggressive, inn...
Zackheim, Hugh I support a NPCC Power Plan that: -- Preserves strong energy-efficiency and renewable-energy targets -- Sets goals to reduce CO2 emissions in the region -- Phases out coal-fired power plants -- ...
Zheutlin, Cathy I appreciate the efforts you have made to make our world sustainable. Your plan needs to go further. The state of Oregon must cut greenhouse gas emissions, even more than your plan proposes and one ...
Zuniga, Suzanne The plan should have stronger efficiency standards in order to CUT CO2 emissions and plan for phasing out coal completely. Solar energy could be more viable if it was better supported and subsidie...
Zupicich, Maryln The Northwest is on the cusp of being a national leader in addressing climate change and improving our health, environment, and energy future. I applaud the Council's decision to include strong energy...

Draft Northwest Power Plan recommends mostly energy efficiency to meet future demand for electricity and reduce risk of future electricity shortages and high prices

posted May 10, 2013

PORTLAND, Oregon — The Council invites public comments on its Draft Sixth Northwest Power Plan, which envisions that 58 percent of the new demand for electricity over the next five years could be met with energy efficiency. Over the entire 20-year horizon of the power plan, energy-efficiency, which is the most cost-effective and least-risky resource available, could meet 85 percent of the Northwest’s new demand for power.

“Energy efficiency is the keystone of the power plan,” said Chair Bill Booth, an Idaho member of the Council. “The Council has identified an impressive amount of low-cost energy efficiency, and we’re looking forward to hearing comments about our analysis of that potential.”

The Northwest Power Plan, which the Council revises every five years, advises the Bonneville Power Administration, the federal agency that is the region’s largest electricity supplier with 147 utility customers. Bonneville’s administrator is required to make decisions about future electricity supplies that are consistent with the Council’s power plan. The plan also serves as a regional blueprint to assist electric utilities in their own planning within their service territories.

The Draft Sixth Power Plan calls for achieving 1,200 average megawatts of efficiency over the next five years, or a little over 200 average megawatts per year (one average megawatt is enough electricity to power about 700 homes for a year). In comparison, the Fifth Power Plan called for achieving 700 average megawatts of efficiency over the five-year period from 2005 through 2009, or about 140 average megawatts per year. Through 2008, efficiency improvements totaled 762 average megawatts, exceeding the goal after just four years.

The new plan predicts that demand for electricity will grow by 2,058 average megawatts between 2010 and 2014. If the 1,200-megawatt goal is achieved, energy efficiency could meet 58 percent of the anticipated demand growth. Looking beyond the first five years, the plan predicts that demand for electricity will grow by about 1.2 percent per year over the next 20 years and identifies 5,800 average megawatts of new energy efficiency that could be available over that period to meet 85 percent of that demand. The average cost of the efficiency is half the cost of new power plants.

Future advances in research and technology could lead to transmission upgrades, smart-grid energy management, and power-storage improvements. In addition, the Plan identifies energy efficiency in homes, businesses, and industries in a variety of applications including appliances, consumer electronics, lights, motors, electrical equipment, and building construction.

In addition to efficiency improvements, the plan identifies generating resources including power plants fueled mainly by wind and natural gas to meet the new demand. The plan anticipates no new coal-fired power plants over the 20-year planning horizon.

Since 1983, when the Council issued its first power plan, the regional investment in energy efficiency reduced demand for electricity by 3,700 average megawatts and resulted in only about half as many new power plants being built as would have been without the efficiency improvements. This significant reduction in demand for power, which is equal to the amount of electricity consumed today by all of Idaho and western Montana, saved consumers more than $1.6 billion in electricity costs in 2007 alone compared to the cost of the same amount of electricity from power plants fueled by wind, natural gas, or coal. The reduced demand also means that carbon emissions from the region’s power system are about 14 million tons per year lower than they would be if the demand were met with power from plants that burn fossil fuels.

The new plan, the sixth since the Council issued its first plan in 1983, is posted here, with instructions on how to comment. Public hearings will be held in the four Northwest states over the next two months.

During the public-comment period, the Council is asking for special attention on the following issues:

  1. Rising prices of electricity over the next 20 years and ways that utilities can help to reduce the effect on their customers’ monthly bills, including development of conservation, renewable resources, and demand-response programs;
  2. Load-growth projections for the region - short-term (2010-2015), medium-term (2010-2020) and long-term (2020-2030) – and the extent to which the Council’s economic forecasts adequately incorporate uncertainty;
  3. Conservation targets, the feasibility of achieving those targets, and major sources of uncertainty in achieving them;
  4. The analysis and evaluation in the Plan regarding future capacity needs and the resources to meet peak load demands in the winter and summer;
  5. Integration of wind power into the region’s power system and incorporation into the plan of strategies and resources necessary to meet projected future wind power development; and,
  6. The adequacy of energy and capacity resources, reliability of the regional power system, and appropriate measures of each.

The Council is an agency of the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington and is directed by the Northwest Power Act of 1980 to prepare a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin affected by hydropower dams while also assuring the region an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply.

Draft Sixth Power Plan

posted May 10, 2013

2012 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Costs Report

posted May 9, 2013

This report is available for public comment. This is the 12th year the Council has reported to the Northwest governors on Bonneville’s fish and wildlife costs. The purpose of the report is to provide information, not to assess or comment on the costs. Information in the reports is provided by Bonneville and is not independently verified by the Council.

Comments will be accepted through 5pm Friday, June 7, 2013. Comments may be submitted by email to comments@nwcouncil.org (please write Fish and Wildlife Costs Report in the subject line), or by mail to Mark Walker, Director of Public Affairs, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR, 97204.

Flexibility Assessment Methods

posted May 8, 2013 by Ben Kujala

May 2013 Flexibility Metric Meeting

This meeting focused on the current state of flexibility metrics. There was a dual focus of what is currently being done in utility planning processes and what metrics are being used in research.

Agenda

Subbasin Dashboards

posted May 8, 2013

1987 Columbia River Basin Fish & Wildlife Program

posted May 7, 2013

This is a scanned version of the Council's 1987 F&W Program.

Appendices A and B are part of the overall program, appendices C-E listed separately.

To the People of the Pacific Northwest:

The Columbia River Basin is both the source of an extensive network of hydropower resources and the home of a unique assortment of fish and wildlife. In the past, the two have not coexisted without conflict. During the past 50 years, as the hydropower system has grown, the fish and wildlife in the basin have suffered. With its publication in 1982, the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program represented the genesis of a concerted effort to rebuild the species that have been harmed by hydropower development and operation. Now, nearly five years later, the publication of the 1987 program provides an opportunity to assess the accomplishments of the past five years and to set a course for future actions.

The program's motto is: ''A debt to the past ... an investment in the future". The 1987 Fish and Wildlife Program describes not only the effort to repay that debt but also the initial returns on the investment. Perhaps the greatest return has been the developing cooperation and consensus among previously dissident factions in the basin. The program is proof that a cooperative effort between hydropower and fish and wildlife interests can yield positive results—results that are beneficial to the economic and social well-being of the Pacific Northwest.

A consensus on a process for rebuilding fish and wildlife in the basin now exists, and it is time to put that process to work to produce tangible results. This program should mark the continuation, not the culmination, of those cooperative efforts. It signals the beginning of a new era of cooperation where all parties share a mutual goal: a healthy basin where the needs of hydropower production and fish and wildlife resources are treated in concert, not in conflict, with each other.

The Council would like to thank former Idaho Council member Larry Mills for his extensive contributions to the fish and wildlife program. Mr. Mills, who retired from the Council shortly before the new program was adopted, was instrumental in shaping the Council's fish and wildlife policies.

Greenhouse Gas Symposium Agenda

posted May 3, 2013

Register for tickets at Eventbrite

AGENDA

  • Welcome (Bill Bradbury, Council Chair)  10:00 am – 10:10 am
  • Carbon Primer (Charlie Black)  10:10 am – 10:30 am
  • GHG Emissions by the Regional Power System  10:30 am – 11:15 am
    • Status, including comparison with other regions - Gillian Charles, Energy Analyst, NWPCC
    • Outlook, e.g., impacts of coal plant retirements - Steve Simmons, Energy Analyst, NWPCC
  • Federal Interagency Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon  11:15 am - 12:00 pm
     - Elizabeth Kopits, Economist, U.S. EPA

       BREAK FOR LUNCH ON YOUR OWN  12:00 pm – 1:30 pm

Valuing GHG Emissions  1:30 pm – 3:15 pm

  • State Agency Panel on Valuation and Regulation
    - OR - Margi Hoffman, Energy Policy Advisor to Governor Kitzhaber
    - WA - Tony Usibelli, Energy Office Director, Department of Commerce
    - ID - Jim Yost, Council Member speaking on behalf of the State of Idaho
    - MT - Bob Lake, Public Service Commission
  • Utility Panel on Valuation in Integrated Resource Plans
    - PGE - Brian Kuehne, Manager, Resource Planning
    - Pacificorp - Rick Link, Director, Structuring and Pricing
    - Avista - Clint Kalich, Manager, Resource Planning and Power Supply Analyses
    - Seattle City Light - Dave Clement, Director, Resource Planning

BREAK  3:15 pm – 3:30 pm

Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Regional Power System  3:30 pm – 4:30 pm

  • Federal agencies study of how climate change could impact hydrology and water supplies in the Columbia River Basin - Erik Pytlak, Manager, Weather and Streamflow Forecasting, BPA
  • Potential impacts on Northwest hydro system operations - Charlie Black, Director, Power Division, NWPCC, John Shurts, General Counsel, NWPCC

ADJOURN  4:30 pm

LBNL Report on Fast Automated DR for Ancillary Services

posted May 1, 2013

This report covers the potential of commercial and industrial loads in California to provide fast automated demand response for ancillary services.  While the Northwest does not have a market for ancillary services there are some interesting take-aways from this report.  First, there is a comparison of automated DR to battery storage that puts the cost of automated DR around 10 percent of the cost of battery storage.  Then there is an estimate of the ability of commercial loads to shed by end-use and by duration.  

The report is available at http://drrc.lbl.gov/node/431.

2008 Program Amendment recommendation

posted May 1, 2013

Error loading MacroEngine script (file: 2008AmendmentRec.cshtml)

Recommendations to Amend the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

posted May 1, 2013

Upcoming Symposium: Greenhouse Gas and the Regional Power System

posted May 1, 2013 by Chad Madron

Upcoming Symposium: Greenhouse Gas
and the Regional Power System

June 4, 2013  •  10am to 4:30pm

The Council is in the early stages of developing its Seventh Northwest Power Plan. To help inform the plan and to promote regional discussions, we will be holding a series of symposiums on major power planning issues.

Embassy Suites Hotel
7900 NE 82nd Avenue
Portland, Oregon (map)

$35 registration fee, lunch not included. Space is limited, so register early to ensure a spot. Stay tuned for details here including the agenda.

The symposium on greenhouse gas emissions by the Pacific Northwest electricity sector will cover:

  • Current and forecast level of emissions and comparison with other regions
  • Approaches federal and state agencies and utilities are using to value greenhouse gas emissions
  • Potential climate change impacts on the Northwest hydrosystem

2013-2014 Energy Symposiums

posted May 1, 2013 by Chad Madron

To help support the development of the Council’s Seventh Northwest Power Plan, we are holding a series of symposiums on various power planning related topics. In February the topic was energy storage, in June we will discuss greenhouse gas emissions and the Northwest power system. This schedule will include more symposiums as they are confirmed.

If you have suggestions or comments, contact Chad Madron, 503-222-5161.

Topic Date City Location
Greenhouse Gas and the Regional Power System June 4, 2013 Portland Embassy Suites Airport
Pacific Northwest Market July 8, 2013 Seattle Sheraton
California Market including: AB32, Integration, SBX12, CAISO, OTC/Songs September 5, 2013 Portland  
British Columbia including: BC Hydro IRP, CRT, Site C, CO2 Tax November 2013 Seattle  

Taking the Puzzlement Out of Scientific Communication

posted Apr 30, 2013

Piece Of The Puzzle

Last week, the Council's power division viewed an excellent video on the importance of communicating scientific information to the public. 

It's part of what Power Division Director Charlie Black calls prep work for the next power plan.

"Being able to explain how we develop the plan, its major components, and how different decisions interconnect, will be critical for helping people understand why it matters and how it affects them," said Black.

In the video, actor Alan Alda talks about the importance of connecting the public to science. He discovered through hosting the PBS program Scientific American Frontiers, that the best way for him to understand the complex subject matter was through informal conversations, not scripted lectures.

It's a humorous and heartfelt reflection on why there seems to be a wall, a disconnect, between scientists--or specialists of all kinds for that matter--and the public. You might say we're speaking two different languages. But Alda makes the case for why we must bridge the understanding gap, not just to nurture trust between the public and the science community, but to advance scientific understanding among scientists, too.

The Council's planning includes outreach to the public to begin that two-way converstion; to share information, listen to the concerns of people, and involve them in making important decisions about our energy future. The mid-term assessment of the last power plan was an example of this engagement, and it helped bring into focus some of the most important issues for the next plan to address.

We want to continue to do a better job of reaching people. Some ideas we have for communicating technical information include blog updates, interactive digital projects, and primers on key topics. What have you found to be effective communication tools? We'd love to hear your thoughts. In the meantime, stay tuned to our website for the latest information on building the Seventh Power Plan.

Sixth Power Plan Approval: Transcript and comments

posted Apr 29, 2013

Transcript of the February 10, 2010 Council meeting approval of the Sixth Power Plan; see also the 2-minute YouTube video.

[Bruce] Measure:  Let’s reconvene and consider the potential adoption of the Council’s Sixth Power Plan.  Terry and John.
 
[Terry] Morlan:  Okay, there’s one change that was worked on a little bit yesterday at the end of the meeting that we wanted to show everyone.  It’s in the overview in the fish and wildlife section; it’s on the screen.  It is really just making things a little bit more correct; the blue and red changes are what they are.  I think that’s been shopped with most of the Council Members so I don’t think there is any discussion, but if there is, this would be a good time, or any other questions they might have about the plan before we move ahead.
 
Measure:  Yes, and what I had in mind was maybe moving the plan first and then going into that discussion arena, John, unless you had something first.
 
[John] Shurts:  No, this is the only thing I had was some language changes and I’m done.
 
Measure:  So you feel that requires the wording with changes as adopted as presented by staff at today’s meeting?
 
Shurts:  Yes, the motion is in front of you.
 
Measure:  So absent any preparatory comments, would you want to make the motion?
 
Wallace:  Thank you Mr. Chair.  It is my distinct honor to move that the Council adopt the Sixth Pacific Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan as presented by staff and recommended by the Power Committee with changes adopted by the members at this meeting; direct the staff to prepare the supporting appendices and a Response to Comments for Council review and approval; direct the staff to make the necessary editorial changes to the plan with review by an editorial review committee named by the Chair to assure that all such changes are truly editorial; and direct the staff to give appropriate notice of this action.
 
[Melinda] Eden:  I’ll second that motion.
 
Measure:  Did you have some further comments, any questions or comments from the members?
 
Eden:  Mr. Chair.
 
Measure:  Member Eden.
 
Eden:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  It is always a big day when the Council considers adoption of a power plan or a fish and wildlife program, and regardless of the outcome of the vote, this is a big day and I thank you for the opportunity to say a couple of things.  This is my list of thank you, with a little history.  The creation of this power plan began in June of 2007 when Terry Morlan, the power division director, gathered the power staff members of the state and the central offices to identify potential issues in the sixth plan.  The Council developed a list of issues, including concerns for climate change, new types of resources and technological improvements and released an issue paper in December of 2007.  The Sixth Power Plan which is before you today addresses these issues and others identified by the region.  I want to thank the Council Members for their hard work on this plan. This is an excellent plan.  It provides the region a path for the future that expands its portfolio of electricity resources and encourages technological innovation for generations to come.  Thank you to the Power Committee for its service and attention to this plan and that includes the state energy staffers who have worked very hard on this.  This is a highly technical document full of analysis.  It is not always easy for policy makers to slog through such technical information, but you were patient and careful in your consideration of the issues that this plan reflects.  I appreciate each of the many discussions we’ve had and your comments and questions over the past two years. 
 
Thank you to Terry Morlan and his staff in the power planning division.  You have produced analytical work of which we are all proud.  I am grateful to each of you for your hard work, your dedication and your technical abilities.  Terry, your leadership has been inspirational as are your patients and ability to explain difficult material to policy makers, and I’ve been privileged to work with you closely these last two years as power chair.  I would especially like to acknowledge the work of Gillian Charles.  She cracked the whip and herded the cats, and kept both Council Members and staff on track.  I appreciate her dedication in keeping the moving parts of this plan all pointed in the same direction.  She did a great job.  
 
Thank you to John Shurts and the legal division for keeping us on the straight and narrow and out of trouble so far.  
 
Thank you to Mark Walker and his public affairs staff for the work they have already done on this plan and the herculean task they are about to undertake to prepare this huge document.  
 
Thanks to Steve Crow for his oversight of the entire operation; to Judi Hertz for giving the power committee the big meeting room for many months so that the public could attend and participate in our deliberations.
 
And thanks, too, to Kendra Coles and Denise Bennett for their able assistance in cranking out and distributing the many comments and draft documents involved in arriving at a final destination.
 
The region deserves our thanks as well.  The region’s utilities participated in the creation of this plan as never before.  Public interest groups offered adjustments at every phase of the plan’s creation.  The plan is better for the input from each of these entities and from each of you Council Members.  The well-attended public hearings demonstrate how important this plan is to the region and to its citizens.  Thank you to the 769 individuals and entities who took the time and made the effort to comment on this plan.
 
The plan illuminates a clear path and the region is anxious to take steps along that path.  And thank you, Mr. Chair.
 
Measure:  Thank you Member Eden.  Member Karier.
 
[Tom] Karier:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  This past summer I was reading an article about the challenging energy situation in the United States, and the article talked about all the issues of carbon, petroleum imports, rising prices, scarcity, pollution, but there is one great potential resource and it was conservation.  But unfortunately it was a forgotten resource.  It needed to be developed at a local and regional level, because conservation in the Southwest is different than in the Northeast, and different in the Midwest, and unfortunately nobody was keeping track of that resource except in the Northwest, where we have the Northwest Power and Conservation Council which does that exact function and finds and identifies those great resources.  And we’ve been doing that for a long, long time.  
 
The Northwest has a great energy heritage.  We enjoy some of the lowest power rates in the country; we have for a long time based on our hydropower system.  And equally important we have one of the cleanest power systems in the United States.  And to have both of those characteristics is unprecedented.  It is clean, it is low emissions and low carbon to begin with.  And that is as much because of the hydropower system, but it has also been enhanced by our great investments in conservation over the years which the Council has championed throughout this period and the remarkable development of wind power in the last few years.  If you were to Mapquest the Northwest energy future, you’d find the Sixth Power Plan.  It really is that good; it is bold, it’s smart, it’s a path to preserve and expand the great Northwest energy heritage that we’ve inherited.  Member Eden left out one thank you.  I think she covered the range there and we’re indebted to everyone that she mentioned, but her own contribution has been immeasurable to this as chair of the Power Committee.  She kept things on track and organized and she described this as a very complicated, challenging work and it is, and she kept right on track of it and moved this through and helped everyone who made these contributions come to fruition.  As well as our colleagues on the Power Committee and the Council, there has been some great work done.  So thank you, Chair Eden, and thanks to the Council.
 
Measure:  Thanks, Member Karier.  Member Yost, did you have something.
 
[Jim] Yost:  Mr. Chairman, I can sum up the experience with one word and it addresses all of the participants and the process and it’s “Swell.  It was just swell.”  
 
Measure:  Member Wallace.
 
[Dick] Wallace:  Thank you Mr. Chair and I’ll just echo the thanks and the good words of the previous speakers.  The other thing I’d like to mention is that we’ve really significantly advanced and set our future direction on integration of fish and wildlife and power, and I think that’s great.  The other thing that in this day and age is fantastic is that the staff has estimated that energy efficiency alone will create 47,000 new jobs.  So this is a great way to look for our energy future and help with creating some of those jobs.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.
 
Measure:  Thanks, Member Wallace.  And I’d like to reiterate the praise and congratulations to staff and members of the Power Committee.  Member Eden, you did a wonderful job of carrying us through this process and I thought you were very equitable in your treatment of all of the members of the Power Committee.  It was a difficult time between the disparate types of writing styles, the new nomenclature that we had to learn in virtually every aspect of the power plan.  It was a very difficult process; it never was easy.  I also want to congratulate Jim Yost and thank him very much for his attempts to bring all the disparate issues and interests to the fore in a very difficult fashion.  It was not easy to advocate some of the positions that he took, but we’ve come out with a better power plan as a result of that.  And it forced us all to work together very clearly and I appreciate that quite a bit.  I want to thank Dick Wallace who sat in on numerous power planning sessions.  Webinars are not the most interesting thing in the world and to sit there for six hours when it’s not your primary purpose and then contribute your opinions individually, I thought was heroic.  And I want to thank you for that as well.  And all the members of the Council, thank you very much.
 
[Rhonda] Whiting:  I’d like to say ditto to what Jim Yost said.
 
Measure:  Okay, ditto the swells.  If there’s nothing else, we have the motion, it has been seconded.
 
Unanimous roll call vote approval.

Update to the Wholesale Electricity Price Forecast

posted Apr 29, 2013

This Wholesale Electricity Price Forecast updates the forecast developed in 2010 for the Council’s Sixth Power Plan, and it reflects the regional changes that have occurred in generating resources, natural gas prices, electricity demand, and state and federal environmental and emission policy. Future electricity prices were evaluated under a variety of CO2 emission regulatory scenarios and high, and low fuel price and demand sensitivities. The new power market outlook has resulted in a significantly lower wholesale price forecast than the Sixth Power Plan’s medium forecast.

  • Low spot market prices for wholesale power at the Mid Columbia pricing point are expected to continue but gradually grow over time with the price of natural gas and cost of CO2 emissions.

Large supplies of hydro power in the region, low load growth, significant development of renewable power with low operating costs, and low natural gas prices have combined to keep market prices for electricity low. Continued low spot prices may act to mute price signals, which could discourage future power generation development in the region. Low prices may also affect avoided-cost calculations used for energy efficiency assessments.

  • Natural gas prices exert a strong influence on the price of electricity, though gas consumption in the region may not significantly increase. Gas generation in the region is expected to surpass coal for good around the 2021 time frame.

Since natural gas-fired plants are often the marginal generating unit, gas prices play an important role in determining the wholesale electricity price. Variations in the future price of gas could have significant impact on electricity prices for the region.

  • Federal and state level greenhouse gas regulatory policies will influence future electricity prices, CO2 emission levels, and resource development. Even without a uniform federal cap and trade system or carbon tax, existing federal and state policies, coupled with low natural gas prices, are affecting CO2 emissions and electricity prices.

The study of CO2 emission trends, along with the impact of various emission policy decisions, has been identified as an important topic for the Seventh Power Plan. During the forecast update, new work was undertaken to model emissions using the same electricity market model that was developed to forecast prices. Modeled CO2 emissions were found to compare well to actual historic emissions for the region, giving confidence to the integrity of future projections using this method. The results from the midterm forecast indicate that the region can expect future CO2 emissions to decline, even without a federal CO2 regulatory cost policy. This is due to coal plant retirements, state and proposed federal CO2 performance standards, along with an increased reliance on energy efficiency, natural gas-fired generation, and wind energy. Modeling results indicate even lower emissions may result from a cost-based federal regulatory policy on CO2 emissions.

  • CO2 emissions in the region are expected to drop as wind generation expands and coal plant closures such as Boardman and Centralia occur.

The forecast results indicate that the region can expect future CO2 emissions to decline, even without a federal greenhouse gas regulatory cost policy. This is due to coal plant retirements, state and proposed federal GHG performance standards, along with continued emphasis on energy efficiency, natural gas-fired generation, and continued development of wind and other renewable resources.  Modeling results indicate even lower emissions may result from a cost-based federal regulatory policy on GHG emissions.

Demand Forecast Advisory Committee

posted Apr 25, 2013 by Massoud Jourabchi

Draft Agenda for the first meeting of Demand Forecast Advisory Committee For the 7th Power Plan

May 23rd 2013 start at 10:00 AM closing at 3:30 PM

Large conference room Council offices
(We will have a break for lunch - on your own - from 11:45 to 1:00)

To participate in the meeting remotely go to:

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/442844873

Join the conference call:
1-800-786-1922

Participant code:53922423
Meeting ID: 442-844-873

 

Greetings and introduction of new members

  • Review of agenda
  • Discussion of Council’s planning process
  • A brief over-view of Council’s long-term Demand model 

PDF of Presentation Materials

Open Discussion Topic Areas for Key Drivers of load forecast

  • Population forecast
    • Changing demographics
    • Can climate change bring more population to NW?
  • Residential Sector new unit additions
    • Have you seen a shift from single to multi-family housing?
    • Do you see increase in high-rise residential units (4 story and above)?
    • How are you planning to incorporate findings from Residential Building Stock Assessment study?
  • Commercial Sector floor space addition
    • Do you see a slow-down in commercial construction activities?
    • Have you seen a shift in building mix?
  • Industrial Sector output
    • Have you seen re-shoring/ resurgence of industrial sector?
    • Do you see a rebirth of industrial sector?
    • Is the Growth in large data centers going to continue?
  • Transportation sector
    • Do you see growth in Electric vehicles continuing?
    • Do you think natural gas vehicles are going to take-off?
  • Economic Scenarios (Highs and Lows)

Schedule for the 7th Plan

  • Timing of the 7th Power Plan
  • Schedule for the next meeting/webinar

Project presentations

posted Apr 23, 2013

Confirmed Time Project # Title Proponent(s) Contextual
January 17 – Data Management
presentation 8:15 AM 2004-002-00 Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) Coordination US Geological Survey (USGS) X
presentation 8:35 AM 1989-062-01 Program Coordination and Facilitation Services (Objective 2) Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation (CBFWF)  
presentation 8:45 AM 1988-108-04 StreamNet - Coordinated Information System (CIS)/ Northwest Environmental Database (NED) Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)  
presentation 9:25 AM 2008-505-00 Streamnet Library Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)  
presentation 9:05 AM 2008-507-00 Tribal Data Network Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)  
presentation 9:40 AM 1996-019-00 Data Access in Real Time (DART) University of Washington  
  10:00 AM Break       
  10:15 AM Open dialogue Data Management - Fish    
presentation 10:45 AM 2006-006-00 Habitat Evaluation Project Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWF)  
see above  10:55 AM 2003-072-00 Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin Northwest Habitat Institute  
see above 11:15 AM 1989-062-01 Program Coordination and Facilitation Services (Objective 6) Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation (CBFWF)
  11:30 AM Open dialogue Data Management - Wildlife    
  12:00 PM Lunch      
January 17 – Program Coordination
presentation 1:00 PM 1989-062-01 Program Coordination and Facilitation Services (Objective 6 ) Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation (CBFWF)  
presentation 1:20 PM 1998-031-00 Implement Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)  
presentation 1:40 PM 2007-108-00 Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Coordination Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT)  
presentation 2:00 PM 2007-407-00 Upper Snake River Tribe (USRT) Coordination Upper Snake River Tribes Foundation  
January 18 – Resident Fish
presentation 8:15 AM 1990-044-00 Coeur D'Alene Reservation Fisheries Habitat  Coeur D'Alene Tribe  
presentation   2001-032-00 Coeur D'Alene Fisheries Enhancement-Hangman Creek Coeur D'Alene Tribe  
see above   2001-033-00 Hangman Creek Wildlife Restoration Coeur D'Alene Tribe  
presentation 9:15 AM 1994-047-00 Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)  
presentation 9:35 AM 2007-149-00 Non-Native fish Suppression in Graham Creek Kalispel Tribe  
presentation   2007-246-00 Restoration of Bull Trout Passage at Albeni Falls Dam Kalispel Tribe  
presentation   1995-001-00 Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish Program Kalispel Tribe  
presentation   1997-004-00 Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams Kalispel Tribe  
  10:30 AM Break      
presentation 10:45 AM 1991-019-03 Hungry Horse Mitigation Habitat Restoration and Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)  
see above   2006-008-00 Mainstem Columbia Amendments Research at Libby Dam Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)  
see above   1995-004-00 Libby Reservoir Mitigation Restoration and Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)  
presentation 11:20 AM 1991-019-01 Hungry Horse Mitigation/Flathead Lake Restoration and Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes  
see above   2002-003-00 Secure and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Montana Salish and Kootenai Confederated Tribes  
  12:00 PM Lunch      
presentation   2002-008-00 Reconnect Kootenai River with Historic Floodplain Kootenai Tribe  
presentation   2002-002-00 Restore Natural Recruitment of Kootenai River White Sturgeon Kootenai Tribe  
presentation 12:40 PM 1994-049-00 Kootenai River Ecosystem Restoration (Nutrient project) Kootenai Tribe  
presentation 1:40 PM 1988-065-00 Kootenai River Fishery Investigations Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)  
presentation
Pine video
Burns video		 2:00 PM 2007-170-00 South Fork Snake River Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Recruitment and Survival Improvement Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)  
presentation 2:20 PM 2007-003-00 Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)  
  2:40 PM Break      
presentation 3:00 PM 1992-010-00 Fort Hall Habitat Restoration Shoshone-Bannock Tribes  
presentation 3:20 PM 1997-019-00 Evaluate Life History of Native Salmonids in Malheur River Subbasin Burns-Paiute Tribe  
presentation 3:40 PM 1995-015-00 Duck Valley Reservation Reservoir Fish Stocking Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Monitoring and Evaluation ( M&E) Shoshone-Paiute Tribes  
presentation 4:00 PM 1997-011-00 Duck Valley Reservation Habitat Enhancement Shoshone-Paiute Tribes  
presentation 4:20 PM 1995-013-00 Nez Perce Trout Ponds Nez Perce Tribe  
presentation 4:40 PM 2002-037-00 Freshwater Mussel Research and Restoration  Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)  
presentation 5:00 PM 2007-157-00 Bull Trout Status and Abundance on Warm Springs Reservation Confederated Tribes Of Warm Springs  
January 19 – Resident Fish
presentation 8:15 AM 1985-038-00 Colville Hatchery Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Colville Confederated Tribes  
see above   2007-405-00 Rufus Woods Habitat/Passage Improvement, Creel and Triploid Supplementation Colville Confederated Tribes  
see above   2008-111-00 Twin Lakes Enhancement Colville Confederated Tribes  
see above   2008-117-00 Rufus Woods Redband Net Pens Colville Confederated Tribes  
presentation   1995-011-00 Chief Joseph Kokanee Habitat Enhancement Colville Confederated Tribes  
presentation   1990-018-00 Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout Habitat and Passage Improvement  Colville Confederated Tribes  
presentation   2008-115-00 Lake Roosevelt Burbot Population Assessment Colville Confederated Tribes  
presentation   2008-116-00 White Sturgeon Enhancement Colville Confederated Tribes  
presentation 10:00 AM 1995-009-00 Lake Roosevelt Rainbow Trout Net Pens Lake Roosevelt Development Association  
  10:20 AM Break      
presentation 10:30 AM 1991-046-00 Spokane Tribal Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Spokane Tribe  
presentation   1994-043-00 Lake Roosevelt Data Collection Spokane Tribe  
    1995-027-00 Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon Recovery Spokane Tribe  
    2007-372-00 Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon Hatchery Spokane Tribe  
presentation 11:30 AM 1991-047-00 Sherman Creek Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)  
presentation   2001-029-00 Ford Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)  
presentation   2001-028-00 Banks Lake Fishery Evaluation Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)  
  12:15 PM End      
  No presentation 2007-041-00 Kalispell Road Removal Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)  
  No presentation 1991-019-04 Hungry Horse Mitigation-Creston Hatchery US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)  
  No presentation 2008-112-00 Resident Fish Loss Assessment Colville Confederated Tribes  
  No presentation 1988-064-00 Kootenai River White Sturgeon Aquaculture Conservation Facility Kootenai Tribe X
  No presentation 2002-011-00 Kootenai River Operational Loss Assessment Kootenai Tribe X

Invitation for public comment on ISRP review Resident Fish, Data Management and Regional Coordination projects

posted Apr 23, 2013

April 2012 update: The Council invites your comments through May 4, 2012, on two Independent Scientific Review Panel reports:

  1. Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination Category Review: Final Review of Proposals, document ISRP 2012-6 (Apr 2012)
  2. Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination Category Review: Preliminary Review of Proposals, document ISRP 2012-2 (Feb 2012)

The Council is in the middle of a process under Section 4(h)(10)(D) of the Northwest Power Act to review project proposals related to Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination to implement the Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.  As detailed below, the ISRP’s Preliminary Report that is now available for public comment is the first of two ISRP reports in this review that you will be able to comment on. The final ISRP report will be available and posted on the Council’s website on April, 4, 2012, and the comment period will be held open to May 4, 2012, to allow for an opportunity to comment on that report as well.

The Council asked the ISRP to review 80 project proposals in three categories: Resident Fish, Data Management, and Regional Coordination. We welcome your comments on any or all aspects of the ISRP’s preliminary review report and the underlying project proposals. The ISRP concluded in its preliminary review report that 24 of the project proposals meet the ISRP’s science review criteria either in whole or in part or with certain qualifications. In addition, the ISRP made a specific programmatic recommendation that applies to the 17 regional coordination proposals. The project proposals with these ISRP ratings may be found in the list of project proposals on pages 22-24 of the ISRP’s preliminary report, with links from the list to the project descriptions and the ISRP’s review comments. During this review process, there will be no further ISRP review of these 41 project proposals. The Council will consider for its final recommendation to Bonneville: the project proposals, the ISRP’s review of the project proposals, and public comments on the ISRP’s report and project proposals.  

As for the remaining 30 project proposals, the ISRP concluded in its preliminary review report that these require further information from the project sponsor before the ISRP may conclude its review. The project sponsors for these project proposals have been asked directly by the Council and the ISRP to respond to the comments in the ISRP’s preliminary report by March 7, 2012.  The ISRP will review these additional responses and will issue a final review report that will be posted for public review on April 4, 2012.  You may comment now on the ISRP’s preliminary report on these 30 project proposals, wait for the final report to submit to comment, or both. All written comments on the ISRP’s preliminary and final reports and on these project proposals must be submitted to the Council by the close of business on May 4, 2012.

The Council intends for its Fish and Wildlife Committee to consider the project proposals, the ISRP’s reports, and the public comments at the Council’s May 2012 meeting in Hood River, Oregon, on May 8-9. There may be an additional opportunity for oral comment to the Committee at that meeting, and possibly an opportunity for public comment on a draft set of project recommendations to Bonneville as time allows. The Council then anticipates making final project recommendations to Bonneville on all the project proposals in these categories at the Council’s June 2012 meeting in Missoula, Montana, on June 12-13.

For further information, contact Lynn Palensky at (503) 222-5161 or (800) 452-5161.

Thank you for your interest.

FY 2013 Resident Fish, Data Management and Program Coordination Review

posted Apr 23, 2013

Background

On September 1, 2011, the Council began a science review of projects in the Resident Fish/Blocked Areas, Regional Coordination (Program Coordination) and Data Management categories under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program.

Please email or call any contacts below. For questions about accord projects in this review, contact your COTR or Bryan Mercier. Thanks and we look forward to working with you during this review.

Contacts

  • Lynn Palensky , 503-222-5161, General process and review coordination
  • Mark Fritsch , 503-222-5161, Project-specific coordination
  • Erik Merrill, 503-222-5161, ISRP review and proposal form
  • Bryan Mercier, 503-230-3991, Taurus and proposal form (BPA)

RFP for DR as a Resource to Integrate Variable Generation

posted Apr 19, 2013

The Western Interstate Energy Board and the State Provincial Steering Committee have requested a study on the capability of DR to integrate variable generation within the next 3 to 5 year period.  The proposed study will summarize the existing  research, identify gaps and propose a research agenda, execute a research agenda as described by a task force and prepare a report on best practices.  Proposals are due by April 10th.  The budget for the proposal is $125,000.  The RFP is available on the Western Governors Association website at http://www.westgov.org/wieb/rfp/02-28-13DRver.pdf.

Idaho Power ramps down two DR programs

posted Apr 19, 2013

Idaho Power will ramp down two DR programs in 2013.  One program involves residential air conditioners and the other involves irrigation load.  Customers who paricipated in these programs will receive continuity payments to help keep the programs intact for future needs.  More information is available on the Idaho Public Utility Commission website at http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/press/040313_IPCDSMsuspend.pdf.

LBNL Report on Market and Policy Barriers for DR providing Ancillary Services

posted Apr 19, 2013

Lawerence Berkley National Labs released a report on market and policy barriers for Demand Response providing ancillary services.  LBNL did not directly study a balancing authority in the Northwest.  However, the report looks at a balancing authority in Colorado that is not part of an organized market.  The market and policy barriers in this balancing authority have parallels to the barriers that DR faces in the Northwest.  The appendices are two tables that identify barriers and actions that can be taken to alleviate these barriers.  These tables could be a useful input into a study more focused on the Northwest.

The report and a companion presentation can be accessed on the LBNL website at http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/market-and-policy-barriers-demand-response-providing-ancillary-services-us-markets.

Demand Response Papers, Reports & Presentations

posted Apr 18, 2013

Error loading MacroEngine script (file: GroupNews.cshtml)

PNDRP News

posted Apr 18, 2013

Error loading MacroEngine script (file: GroupNews.cshtml)

Demand Response Resources

posted Apr 18, 2013

(I'll include a nice jQuery utility to let users sort/filter this table)

Organization Description Date added
Demand Response Research Center A research center lead by Lawrence Berkley National Labs 2013/04/30
     

Demand Data

Data Set

Description
California Commercial End Use Survey

Data on commercial loads in California

Email Ben Kujala to add modify this list.

Demand Response Standards

posted Apr 18, 2013

(I'll include a nice jQuery utility to let users sort/filter this table)

Organization Standard Date added
Standard Insurance Insurance premiums as related to energy demand 2013/04/12
Fort Knox Gold standard, mostly ingots and krugerands 2012/08/15

Email Ben Kujala to modify this list.

Forbidden access

posted Apr 18, 2013

Your username and/or password are incorrect.

Login required

posted Apr 18, 2013

Pacific Northwest Demand Response Project

posted Apr 18, 2013 by Ben Kujala

 

Energy Forecasts

posted Apr 17, 2013

The Council forecasts regional demand for electricity, wholesale market prices for natural gas, and wholesale market prices for electricity in developing its power plan. The forecasts are also used by utilities, regulatory agencies, state energy policy offices, and other organizations in their planning, and they are now available on a more regular basis, including annual updates.

eric's test page

posted Apr 17, 2013

test calendar

calendar

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

Use the following links to connect to other related sites, or to download related documents

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

 

The Council was established to respond to a very different world than the region faces today. Some of the Council's past roles are less important, or even unnecessary, in this new world. Other roles seem to have continuing relevance during the transition to a new industry structure and, possibly, beyond.

In developing this draft power plan, the Council faced challenges that are far more significant than any it has faced in the past. Technological and regulatory changes are sweeping the energy industry and are certain to affect the industry's basic structure. To the extent that effective electricity markets can be facilitated, the Northwest stands to gain greater economic efficiency in its power system more quickly than could be accomplished by regional planning. Regulation and planning are, at best, approximations of what can be achieved by a well-functioning market. Thus, the focus of this plan is on understanding the coming changes, explaining them to the public, and opening a discussion of ways that the region might facilitate an orderly transition to an effective competitive market.

At the same time, new approaches need to be identified to achieve some of the goals of the Northwest Power Act that may not be achievable in a competitive marketplace. Energy efficiency, renewable resource development and environmental protection are all goals of the Act that are unlikely to be strongly supported by a competitive industry.

8-A. Goals of the Northwest Power Act

As the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (the Act) was being debated, it was thought that the region was facing impending power deficits. The resources that utilities planned and began to build to meet those deficits were large, expensive, environmentally controversial and took many years to site and construct. Those on which construction was begun had the consequence of raising power rates from the federal system by more than 500 percent, even though most were never completed.

The Power Act put in place an ambitious experiment in regional planning. It was a balancing of interests that integrated power generation, system reliability, environmental concerns, energy efficiency, and the costs of new and existing resources. It sought to involve the public in making decisions about the composition of electricity resources that would meet the region's future electricity needs.

The specific purposes of the Act are, among others:

  • To encourage conservation and efficiency in the use of electric power;
  • To encourage the development of renewable resources;
  • To assure the region of an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply;
  • To provide for the participation and consultation of the states, local governments, consumers, customers, users of the Columbia River system and the public at large in:

– the development of regional plans and programs related to energy conservation, renewable resources, other resources, and protecting, mitigating and enhancing fish and wildlife resources;

– facilitating the orderly planning of the region's power system;

– providing environmental quality; and

– the protection, mitigation and enhancement of the fish and wildlife, and their habitat, of the Columbia River Basin.

To carry out the power-related purposes of the Northwest Power Act, Congress gave the Council explicit responsibilities. The Council is to develop and periodically revise a regional, long-term conservation and electric power plan. That plan is to incorporate:

  • Priority for cost-effective resources with first priority given to conservation, second to renewable resources, third to resources using waste heat or that have high conversion efficiency, and fourth to all other resources;
  • An energy conservation program including model conservation standards;
  • Recommendations for research and development;
  • A methodology for determining quantifiable environmental costs and benefits;
  • A demand forecast of at least 20 years and a forecast of the resources required to meet Bonneville's obligations;
  • An analysis of reserves and reliability requirements; and
  • The Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. [ 16 USC §839 b(e)-(f).]

In developing this plan and in regional power policy generally, the Council is to ensure "widespread public involvement." [ 16 USC §839 b (g).]

The acquisition of conservation and other resources by the Bonneville Power Administration is to be consistent with the Council's plan. The Council can choose to subject proposals for major resources (over 50 megawatts for five years or more) to a test of consistency with its plan. If the Council finds a resource inconsistent with its plan, and Bonneville still wishes to acquire it, the administrator must get specific congressional authorization. [ 16 USC §839 d(c).] This is the Council's most important authority over Bonneville's resource acquisition, and even this authority is indirect.

When the Act was passed, it was anticipated that Bonneville would back the acquisition of resources for the whole region – for investor-owned utilities as well as for publicly owned utilities. As a consequence, although the authority of the Council's planning is limited to Bonneville, it was anticipated that it would influence the resource acquisitions of investor-owned utilities. As it turned out, investor-owned utilities did not place significant loads on Bonneville. Nonetheless, the adoption of integrated resource planning rules by the region's state utility regulators and the involvement of the Council in the development of utility integrated resource plans meant that the Council has had significant influence beyond the limits of its direct authority.

8-B. The Council's Power Planning Innovations

The region's first electricity plan was completed by the Council in April 1983, just a year and a half after the Council was formed. That first plan was probably best known for its planning innovations. The 1983 plan set the standard for utility least-cost integrated resource planning. In it, the Council developed a number of planning methods that continue to be prominent in utility integrated resource planning today.

  • The Northwest's power plans are developed from the perspective of the entire regional society. The costs that the plans sought to minimize were all costs of power, whether paid by utilities, their customers, or environmental costs that are not actually paid in dollar terms.
  • The planning process relies heavily on the participation of both direct stakeholders and the general public. Advisory committees provide a means for interest groups to provide input to and review the work of the Council and its staff. Extensive public hearings provide the opportunity for the public to review and influence the directions of the Council's plans.
  • At the heart of integrated resource planning is the consistent evaluation of both generating resources and improved efficiency of energy use. The Council fully integrates efficiency resources into the planning process. Conservation supply estimates are developed to be consistent with energy demand forecasts. Conservation resources compete directly with generating resources in developing a least-cost mix of choices. The costs of resources, both supply-side and demand-side, affect the forecasted price of, and demand for, electricity.
  • The Council's plans focus on the inherent uncertainty of the future. In the Council's first plan, there was no medium or best-guess forecast of future electricity use, but rather a range of four forecasts with an assumed probability distribution. This focus on uncertainty shifts planning objectives from meeting a best-guess forecast of electricity requirements to developing a risk-averse strategy for meeting an uncertain future requirement.
  • The concept of resource "options" was introduced as an important opportunity to reduce the lead time of electricity resources and, thus, help respond to uncertain future resource needs without making huge investments in new power plant construction. The most familiar form of an option would be a pre-designed and pre-sited power plant, that is not completed until the time the plant is needed. This concept was ground-breaking in an era when the lead time for new generation was as long as 10 years.
  • An "action plan" was included to chart an explicit course for the plan's implementers to follow for the first couple of years following the plan's adoption. The action plan is critical to achieving the goals of the plan, and it provides a means of tracking progress and identifying problems.

8-C. The Future Role of the Council

The Council's direct authority over the operation of the region's power system has always been limited, and is likely to be applied even more rarely in the future. For example, if Bonneville is not acquiring new resources, the Council's review authority under the Act will never be exercised. Bonneville currently has a surplus of electricity. As a consequence, it may not be acquiring resources in the near term. Any guidance the plan provides for Bonneville's resource acquisition is thus essentially moot for the time being.

In the past, the Council's plans have not relied on regulatory authority for their impact. With respect to the region's investor-owned utilities, the role of the Council's plan has always been indirect and, at best, limited. Wholesale competition and the potential for retail competition appear to be weakening what have been the primary vehicles for Council influence – the state utility commissions' requirements for integrated resource planning and conservation. As the utility industry evolves in the direction of greater competition, it is quite possible those requirements will not be retained.

Similarly, the plan's influence over the public utilities also has been indirect. In large part it has been exercised through Bonneville, although in several instances the Council has worked with the utilities themselves. Many publicly owned utilities actively embraced integrated resource planning and conservation and worked with the Council in their own planning processes. Some did not. In the future, integrated resource planning and conservation may be problematic for the publicly owned utilities for most of the same reasons that affect the investor-owned utilities.

More fundamentally, in a competitive market, is there still a need for the kind of long-term, regionwide planning and broad public involvement that have typified the Council's work? In the future, the development of new resources will likely be the function of an unregulated, competitive wholesale market in which integrated resource planning, as we have known it, will not play a major role. Planning will most certainly take place, but it will be the kind of planning carried out by competitors seeking a market niche in which they can be successful.

The authority of the Council's plan and the relevance of traditional planning will probably be much more limited than has been the case in the past. Some of the mechanisms that enabled the Council and its plan to influence the actions of regional power actors may be less effective. However, there may still be activities the Council can carry out that will be of value to the region. The questions for the Council and the region are:

  • Are there power-related functions that the Council already performs or could perform under its current mandates that will be useful to the region in a more competitive electricity industry? In particular, are there functions the Council can fulfill that can provide appropriate public policy guidance for the transition to a more competitive electricity industry?
  • Are there new functions that the Council should be authorized to carry out?

Council Functions under the Northwest Power Act

There are a number of activities the Council carries out or could carry out with no changes in the Northwest Power Act that may be of value in a competitive electricity industry. In most instances, these are activities the Council and its staff already perform in the course of developing and, subsequently, trying to facilitate implementation of the regional power plan. They include:

  • Providing up-to-date information on future electricity demands, new generating and efficiency technologies, system operations and market forecasts;
  • Serving as a broker for information exchange among utilities and others;
  • Working at federal and state levels to resolve legal and institutional barriers to accomplishing regional goals;
  • Providing impartial analysis of issues with a long-term regional perspective;
  • Serving as a focus for analysis of the interactions between power and fish;
  • Representing the interests of states and the public in power issues; and
  • Being a regional convener of forums to resolve issues.

Providing Energy Information

The information the Council develops in the course of its planning – forecasts of electricity demand, analysis of new resource costs and availability, and so forth – has been useful to the utility industry and others for their own planning and decision-making. This information could continue to be useful in the future. Some in the industry will be deciding whether to purchase electricity from the market. Others may be developing resources for the power market and facing considerable risk in the process. Everyone will need to know the rules they face and which resources would be the best choices. Futures markets and other financial instruments can distribute financial risk, they cannot eliminate it. The efficient functioning of markets depends on quality information and accurate interpretation of that information.

The Council could focus its information activities to facilitate the transition to and operation of the market. To be of value in a fast moving competitive market, information will have to be produced and revised more frequently than has been the case in the past.

There will, of course, be other providers of such information. Consultants, for example, will produce resource assessments and forecasts, but business imperatives will lead them to restrict access to their information, if they can. Is there value in having an independent entity, such as the Council, develop this sort of information and disseminate it broadly?

Brokering Information

The Council has frequently functioned as an information broker – facilitating the exchange of information among utilities and others about problems and solutions of mutual concern and bringing together potential participants in transactions. Some of this brokering the Council has carried out through its publications, meetings and conferences, or through financial support of similar functions carried out by others. The Council's brokering has frequently been most effective in bringing together those who might not otherwise talk to one another on a regular basis – utilities and local governments, for example. This kind of information exchange may remain valuable, but may also become more difficult, if competition between utilities and other participants in the market for electricity becomes prevalent.

Again, others can and do perform this function. The Public Power Council, the Northwest Public Power Association and the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, for example, have also performed this role for their members and will probably continue to do so to some degree. As the market becomes more competitive, market intermediaries will likely emerge who will perform some broader information brokering functions. Nonetheless, there may be a continuing role for the Council, with its regionwide reach, to bridge the inevitable communication gaps.

Facilitating Regional Goals at Federal and State Levels

The Council has frequently worked at federal and state levels to resolve legal and institutional barriers to the accomplishment of regional goals. The Council's status as representative of the governors of the four Northwest states gives its recommendations unique weight, both within the region and at the federal level, where the region's congressional delegation has been generally supportive.

The Council was the catalyst for the adoption, implementation and enforcement of energy-efficient building codes in several Northwest states and local communities. The Council facilitated conservation activities, such as the Manufactured Housing Acquisition Program, which helped establish more efficient federal standards for manufactured housing. The Council also supported action on national appliance efficiency standards.

These kinds of activities, which helped transform industries and markets to become more efficient, are likely to continue to be important in the future.

Impartial, Long-term Analysis of Issues

One of the Council's primary strengths has been its ability to focus relatively impartial analytical attention on power issues the region faces. The Council takes a long-term perspective on the region's energy system, a focus that is more likely to be neglected by competitors preoccupied with near-term concerns. The Council also takes the perspective of the region as a whole, which can identify issues and solutions that might be missed by parties whose private interests are more narrowly focused. The need for the Council to continue to provide a long-term, regional perspective was voiced repeatedly by a wide range of interested parties during consultations the Council held in the course of developing this draft plan.

As the region makes the transition to a more competitive electricity industry, there will be many issues about that transition on which an independent analytical perspective will be valuable to the region. One might question the continued usefulness of the Council's analysis once the competitive electricity market has matured; commodity markets, such as those for shoes or corn flakes, raise few issues of public policy that require independent analysis.

However, the electricity industry will not be completely deregulated. The areas that are regulated will continue to be public concerns. Moreover, the importance of electricity to the economy and environment of the Northwest, and the fact that so much of the region's electricity is generated by a public resource – the Columbia River system – make it likely that there will be continued value in an independent source of analysis of the region's energy system.

Analyzing the Interaction Between Fish and Power

The significance of the operation of the Columbia River hydropower system to the Northwest's overall power system, as well as to the region's fish and wildlife resources, would argue for an ongoing role for an organization like the Council, which is required to balance these resources. Given the contentiousness of the issues, the high stakes involved and the technical sophistication of the analysis required, the Council's ability to analyze the effects of different hydropower system operational regimes should continue to be of value for the foreseeable future. There has also been the suggestion that the Council should undertake an even broader analysis of the multiple uses of the Columbia and its watershed.

Representing the Interests of the States and the Public

The Council was established in part to give the Northwest states and the public a greater voice in decisions about the region's power system. This was largely because electricity is so important to the economy and environment of the Northwest. In addition, the fact that much of the Northwest's power industry is federally owned and has monopoly status has given the public a particular interest in decisions that affect the industry. This public interest is likely to continue while the industry makes the transition to competition. There will be many issues in that transition about which the states and the public will want to have a voice. In such cases, the Council's regional perspective can make a significant contribution.

In the longer run, the Council's role in representing the states and public will depend on the nature of the market that evolves. A fully competitive market should enable consumers to influence industry decisions through customer choices. As noted above, however, a continued public policy content seems likely. In addition, a continued significant federal presence in some form in the regional power system seems likely, although not certain. This in itself would argue for some vehicle like the Council to represent the interests of the four states and the public.

Convening Forums to Resolve Regional Issues

The Council, representing the governors of the Northwest states, has the ability to convene regional forums to work for the resolution of regionally important issues. This ability will be particularly important in the transition to a competitive electricity industry. How the structure and regulation of the electricity industry evolve will, determine in large part, the degree to which the benefits of competition are achieved and how they are distributed. And while the Northwest is clearly part of a wider electricity market, a vital element of that market will be supplied by the resources of this region. There will be many issues of importance to the region that will have to be resolved on the way to more widespread competition. The Council is well situated to convene the stakeholders for the resolution of such issues. In the longer run, the ultimate nature of the market for electricity and the degree of public policy content of issues will dictate the need for this kind of activity. It seems likely there will be some continuing need for such a function.

New Roles for the Council?

New roles for the Council will depend, in large part, on how the region and the electricity industry adapt to the emergence of competition. For example, will the region find that new mechanisms to fund and implement conservation and renewables are necessary? If so, some entity may be needed to plan and possibly administer those mechanisms. Whether the Council is the appropriate entity is another question, but its expertise and regional purview have significant advantages.

There will inevitably be new needs that arise as the industry's transition proceeds. When these needs align with the Council's strengths – strong analytical capability, regional purview, multipurpose scope, the influence of the governors of the Northwest states – the Council should be a candidate for accomplishing them. Many of the new power-related roles for the Council would require legislation at the federal level and/or in the states. For that reason, the validity of potential roles will appropriately be subjected to intensive public scrutiny.

No Role for the Council?

It would be disingenuous to suggest that the power system of the Northwest could not function without the Northwest Power Planning Council. No other region has an equivalent institution. The power systems in those regions appear to function reasonably well, although in few others is there a public resource equivalent to the Columbia River's power system.

Inevitably, the move to a competitive electricity industry will lessen the influence of regional planning in favor of entrepreneurial strategy. The transition is also likely to lessen consideration of public values in decision-making and possibly even diminish the sense of the Northwest as a region. The policy question the Northwest must resolve is whether there needs to be a continuing means for reflecting the region's values in power decisions and, if so, whether the Council is the appropriate institution to facilitate that process.

^ top

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

This chapter focuses on the role of the Bonneville Power Administration in an increasingly competitive electricity market. The reason for this focus is at least four-fold. First, as a wholesale utility, competition is already here for Bonneville, and it can probably be counted upon to become more intense. Second, Bonneville markets the output of a public resource. As a consequence, Bonneville's governance is more an issue of public policy than is the governance of other utilities. Third, Bonneville is a major and integral part of the region's power system. In an average year, it controls the marketing of almost 40 percent of the electricity sold in the region, most of which is relatively low-cost federal hydroelectric power, and it owns and operates the majority of the region's electricity transmission system. [ Depending on how regional transmission is defined, Bonneville owns between 50 and 80 percent of the region's transmission system.] Bonneville, or its successor, will continue to be a major factor in the region's electricity markets, its economy and its environment. Finally, the federal system has other purposes, public and private, besides power production. As a result, the issues surrounding Bonneville seem more complex.

The subject of the Comprehensive Review is the entire Northwest energy system, but a primary focus of the review is the role of the federal power generation and transmission assets in a competitive power marketplace. A number of alternatives are being discussed for Bonneville. They range from a somewhat scaled-back version of the current federal agency to privatization. The emerging competitive electricity market raises a number of issues for any alternative. Some of the questions and issues that may be addressed in the Comprehensive Review are discussed below.

7-A. Alternatives for the Federal Columbia River Power System

The advent of the competitive market and Bonneville's recent financial difficulties have caused many to ask whether Bonneville should continue to be a federal agency. They point out that federal agencies do not typically compete with the private sector. Advantages such as tax exempt status, greater regulatory autonomy and access to financing from the federal Treasury could be interpreted as giving Bonneville an unfair competitive advantage.

Counterbalancing these advantages, however, are a number of statutory requirements that could hamper Bonneville's competitive position. These include the mandate to serve the requirements of Bonneville's public agency customers, regional preference, prohibition on resale of federal power, cumbersome rate processes and several cost transfers such as the residential exchange, the low density discount and the Bureau of Reclamation's irrigation pumping rate. Several of these are requirements that Bonneville has either recently been successful in removing or modifying or that the agency's representatives have mentioned as in need of relaxation.

Supporters of a less-constrained Bonneville continuing in its present federal status argue that Bonneville must be competitive to meet its responsibility to repay the Treasury and fulfill its "social" responsibilities. Opponents argue that Bonneville may become so competitive that it will be in a position to exercise undue market power.

This chapter considers several alternatives for the Federal Columbia River Power System. These alternatives were chosen to illustrate some of the issues. This is not an exhaustive list. The alternatives are:

  • A continuation of Bonneville as a federal agency, but with limitations. For example, it might be limited to marketing the output of the existing system;
  • A continuation of Bonneville as a federal agency free to compete in the electricity market with as many constraints as possible removed;
  • Sale of the rights to market the output of the Federal Columbia River Power System to a public regional entity;
  • Sale of the rights to market the output to a private entity or entities; and
  • Leasing the rights to market the output to public or private entities.

Sale of Assets vs. Sale or Lease of Marketing Rights

The list of alternatives is limited to the rights to market the output of the federal power system, not sale of the dams or other generating assets. This does not mean that sale or transfer of the physical assets might not be desirable under certain circumstances or that it cannot be accomplished. However, the multi-owner, multipurpose nature of the Columbia River system greatly increases the complexity associated with a sale of assets compared to a sale or lease of marketing rights.

For example, ownership requires responsiveness to the requirements for a number of public or quasi-public purposes (e.g., flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife, navigation) as well as commercial purposes (e.g., power and irrigation water). This is not an absolute obstacle to selling the assets, since a number of dams in the Northwest were constructed by non-federal utilities for power generation only, with the other requirements imposed as a license condition. However, because of their 50-year term, license conditions are not necessarily as flexible as public ownership in ensuring public purposes are met.

Moreover, political opposition could be increased by a sale of the assets, as opposed to sale of the marketing rights, at least if a proposed sale is to a private buyer. The Federal Columbia River Power System is built on an important natural resource for four states, two nations and many Indian tribes. Giving up public ownership of the dams is not an action that will be undertaken lightly. Apparently the non-power beneficiaries of the Southeastern Power Administration joined the power beneficiaries in opposing the recently proposed sale of that agency, in large part because it was a sale of the dams as well as of the power output. The proposal was killed in Congress.

A sale of marketing rights does involve a number of complexities. An important issue that would need to be resolved with a transfer of marketing rights is the degree of control afforded over the output of the dams. This is an issue for two reasons. The first reason is that the non-power constraints still allow flexibility, although not as much as in the past, in the decision to generate electricity or store water for later generation or other purposes. This flexibility is economically valuable. Bonneville currently uses this flexibility to maximize power value, within the constraints of the Coordination Agreement, dam operations requirements under the Endangered Species Act, and the Canadian Treaty. Any transfer of marketing rights will require a mechanism that can balance the ability to operate the system to maximize the value of power, versus operation of the system for non-power obligations.

A second reason degree of control is important is because of the "upstream/downstream" question. Storage releases from upstream dams usually constitute the bulk of the water flowing past downstream dams. The federal projects dominate the upstream storage capability. Coordination with downstream non-federal parties, primarily the mid-Columbia utilities, is essential both to optimizing the power output of the total system and to retaining the current rights of the downstream parties. The Coordination Agreement was developed, in large part, to resolve this potential for conflict. The issue is one of constraining the purchaser of the federal assets, especially if the purchase were of the dams or other assets themselves, but also if it were of marketing rights that include the flexibility to store water or generate electricity.

The complexities related to a transfer of marketing rights, however, appear much more manageable than those associated with a sale of assets. As a consequence, further discussion of non-federal alternatives will be limited to the sale or lease of marketing rights rather than the sale of generating assets.

Issues in Considering Alternatives

Whatever alternative is considered, it will be necessary to confront a number of issues. Some of the issues derive from the principles, characteristics and limitations of competitive markets discussed in Chapter 3. If Bonneville, or its successor, is to operate in a competitive electricity market, the principles, characteristics and limitations of that market will either apply, or the result will be a less effective market. Among the issues that should be considered in Bonneville's case are:

  • The degree of separation of generation and transmission required to ensure that Bonneville, or its successor, cannot restrict competitors' access to the market;
  • The degree of market power Bonneville, or its successor, might exercise as a result of its control of generation; and
  • The ability to absorb competitive risks and rewards and the degree of congruence between those who take risks and those who reap rewards.

Related to the question of risk and reward are the terms of any sale or lease of the marketing rights and contractual constraints on any transfer of liability for the debt on the Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear projects.

Other considerations derive from Bonneville's historic role in the region, the public and quasi-public purposes Bonneville has fulfilled, and whether these purposes can be fulfilled in the future. These considerations include:

  • Allocation of the benefits of the Federal Columbia River Power System through public and regional preference. The benefits are in the form of power sold at cost.
  • Other public purposes, such as irrigation subsidies, mitigation of higher costs to serve low-density rural customers, access to the benefits of federal power for the residential customers of investor-owned utilities, and so on.

These issues are discussed in the following sections.

7-B. Consistency with the Principles, Characteristics and Limitations of Competitive Markets

Should Bonneville's Transmission and Generation Assets Be Separated?

Does the ownership by Bonneville, or its successor, of a very large percentage of the high voltage transmission in the region, combined with the rights to market the output of the Federal Columbia River Power System, give Bonneville market power inconsistent with a fair and effective competitive market? Functional separation of generation and transmission has been proposed as a requirement by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its open access notice of proposed rulemaking for utilities under its jurisdiction. In its current form, Bonneville is not under FERC jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Bonneville is undertaking functional separation of transmission and generation within its existing organization. However, many fear that with pressure to repay the Treasury and at the same time keep power prices low, Bonneville will be tempted to exercise monopoly power over the federal transmission system to maximize the value of its power sales. If Bonneville's transmission system were sold along with the marketing rights to the output of the federal power system, it is likely there would still be similar concerns.

Setting up an independent, FERC-regulated grid operator for the region could insulate Bonneville, or its successor, and other transmission owners from monopolistic temptations. However, as long as Bonneville retains responsibility for marketing federal power, it cannot function as grid operator without facing the temptation to exercise undue market power. The conflict of interest between Bonneville as marketer of federal power and Bonneville as grid operator is unfortunate, given Bonneville's obvious strengths in the area of transmission.

Setting up a separate federal transmission agency with control over Bonneville's transmission assets is another option. Establishing FERC jurisdiction over this entity's transmission tariffs identical to its jurisdiction over investor-owned utility transmission tariffs could go far toward limiting Bonneville's market power. This separate federal entity might be able to play the role of independent grid operator, as well.

The idea of privatizing the transmission grid has also been raised. The resulting private transmission company would be regulated by FERC and would be allowed to earn a rate of return on its investment. It is not clear what benefits would be associated with private ownership compared to continued federal ownership. For example, could private ownership and operation of the system result in sufficient efficiencies compared to federal ownership to offset the higher return on investment a private owner would receive? If not, the result would be a net increase in the cost of transmission in the region.

Some have also suggested that it would be possible to sell the transmission system for more than its remaining debt, with the "profit" used to buy down the debt on Bonneville's high-cost generation. Since many of the users of the transmission system are not firm power customers of Bonneville, such a sale might be a mechanism for spreading the cost of Bonneville generation more broadly. This would undoubtedly raise issues of fairness and might not pass FERC scrutiny on the ground it would result in recovering generating costs in transmission charges.

Market Power

A fundamental question that will have to be resolved, whether Bonneville continues as a federal agency or whether its right to market federal power are sold to another entity, is that of market power. Does the entity have market power in any important electrical product as a result of its control over a large portion of the hydropower system? If so, what remedies are appropriate?

Bonneville, for example, clearly has the ability to influence spot market prices, at least at some times of the year. There may be other power products -- storage and load following, for example -- that the hydropower system is particularly able to provide. Competitive markets for these products may not exist. If not, some degree of regulation of their prices may be necessary.

If Bonneville, or its successor, is to be a full participant in the competitive power market, it may be necessary to sell the marketing rights to more than one party. This raises issues of how the output of the system would be allocated. These issues are probably manageable. Limiting Bonneville's role to an allocation of power to its customers, with limited ability for Bonneville to market any residual power, probably accomplishes the same end. If the structure of the wholesale electricity market in the region evolves toward a mandatory pool, it may be possible to mitigate the market power associated with Bonneville power marketing. In such a pool, prices are set by the marginal bid price in any period. Experience in the United Kingdom, however, indicates it is possible to exercise market power through a mandatory pool if there is sufficient concentration of ownership or the rules for operation of the pool are poorly set. The interaction between market structure and market power should be investigated.

Markets, Risks and Rewards

Competitive markets imply the risk of business failure and loss. Conversely, they also imply the possibility of success and profits. Whatever form Bonneville, or its successor, takes in the future, it will have to be able to accommodate the possibility of either profit or loss.

Risk, Reward and Federal Ownership

The risk of long-term loss poses a problem for Bonneville as a federal agency in the transition to competitive electricity markets. Bonneville has long been subject to the risk of year-to-year fluctuations in hydropower output, risks of fish and wildlife restoration costs and risks associated with treaty obligations to the region's Indian tribes. In the past, Bonneville has been able to absorb these risks because its costs have been consistently below market. The advent of competition poses the possibility and, in recent months, the reality that market competitors may undercut Bonneville's prices for extended periods of time.

As a federal agency, Bonneville has no stockholders to absorb the business losses that are bound to happen, to a greater or lesser extent, in a competitive environment. Instead, the federal Treasury ultimately bears the burden of losses in excess of what can be covered by Bonneville's financial reserves. Bonneville has not yet incurred any long-term losses, and past missed Treasury payments were subsequently brought up to date, with interest. However, one of the mechanisms by which Bonneville has lowered its proposed 1996-2001 rates is a reduction of the probability of full, on-time repayment of its Treasury obligations. On the other hand, recent agreements to limit fish recovery costs have raised the probability of meeting the Treasury payment.

As electricity generation evolves toward a fully competitive industry, the possibility of long-term loss needs to be addressed. Stranded costs due to the competitive transition represent one form of loss, but dealing with the current level of stranded costs, difficult as it may be, will only require a one-time solution to a one-time problem. It should not be assumed that losses could not recur due to changes in technology, customer choices, and so forth. Bonneville's financial problems are generally considered short term (over the next three to five years, for instance), but that is not guaranteed. In a competitive market, prices are independent of a company's own costs. Generally, customers cannot be expected to bear any of the burden of either short-term or long-term losses, since they will simply find a different supplier if the current supplier tries to raise prices above market levels.

If Bonneville is to continue as a federal agency, there are at least two risk-related questions that must be answered. First, with the greater risk exposure associated with a competitive market, will the federal Treasury continue to fulfill the risk-bearing function? If not, what are the options for bearing that risk? Second, should the Treasury be exposed to additional risk as a result of new resource development by Bonneville? The Northwest Power Act obligated Bonneville to meet the requirements of its preference customers and authorized Bonneville to acquire resources to meet those requirements. Those customers, however, are under no obligation to purchase power beyond the periods established in their contracts.

Under the Power Act, Bonneville was granted the authority to acquire resources because, at the time, new resources were large, required long lead times and were very expensive. Small public utilities and even investor-owned utilities were not expected to be able to shoulder the risks of such huge investments without federal backing. This is much less the case in today's utility world. New combustion-turbine technologies, for example, are smaller in scale, less expensive and require far shorter lead times to develop. The risks to utilities from resource development are more manageable, and other entities can develop and market these resources. Consequently, if Bonneville is to continue as a federal agency, there may be reason to limit its role to marketing the output of the existing system. Bonneville no longer needs to take on the risks associated with new resource acquisitions because the utilities themselves are more financially able to manage those risks.

Just as a competitive market implies risks, it also implies the possibility of rewards or profits. It is possible to construct scenarios in which Bonneville's costs are once again below market prices. For example, when the debt on the Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear plants is retired beginning in 2011, it appears likely that Bonneville's costs would be well below market prices. When and if this occurs, will the federal government be willing to allow the region to retain the reward in the form of either profits or below-market prices, or will it want to appropriate some or all of the benefit for the Treasury?

Risk, Reward and Regional Public Ownership

One set of alternatives to continued federal ownership of the marketing rights of the federal power system involve some form of regional public lease or ownership. Regional public ownership is a mechanism for ensuring that potential benefits are retained by the region, at least to the extent that the terms of the sale or lease leave room for benefits.

Risk, however, is still an issue. For a general-purpose government entity (e.g., a state or municipal government), shortfalls are managed by shifting budget accounts or raising taxes. For a non-taxing public entity (e.g., a wholesale generation-only analog of a public utility district), probably neither is possible. If market prices fall below costs, and customers have access to the market, there is no entity to absorb the loss. The same holds true for a non-profit, non-governmental entity purchasing Bonneville's marketing or generation assets. One alternative is federal government guarantees of the debt of such an entity. However, as demonstrated by the savings and loan problem of the 1980s, such backing can substantially distort investment incentives and become a major problem for taxpayers, although it is often perceived to be without cost when it is proposed.

Risk, Reward and Private Ownership

In the private corporate economy, stockholders bear the business risks and incur whatever profits or losses result from taking those risks. Stockholders lose if there are stranded costs. They win if their firm is more efficient than its competitors. Privatization of Bonneville's power marketing function would resolve the allocation of risk and reward in a manner that is consistent with the private economy. This includes transferring any return that might be earned by the regional system to the participants in the sale -- the federal government and the private purchaser.

What is an Appropriate Price for the Rights to Market the Output of the Federal System?

Any sale or lease of the marketing rights for the federal power system involves determining a price. The process of determining a price is one of assessing potential risk and potential reward. Under most circumstances, no one should pay more than market value, and the Treasury should not accept less than embedded cost, unless it is greater than the expected market value. Of course, in this instance, the assessed market value is not certain. Market value depends on the relationship between future costs and the future market price of electricity, both of which can be estimated, but not known. Consequently, there is a great deal of room for negotiation of the price. Because of this uncertainty and the possible desire for immediate deficit reduction, the government could accept a price lower than embedded cost.

In trying to establish market value, it is important to specify the operative time horizon. With a short time horizon (the next five-year rate period, for example), there may be little difference between the market value of the output and embedded cost. Over a longer term (a permanent sale, for example), a buyer might expect there to be more market value in a system that is dominated by fixed costs and low variable costs when the environment is one of variable gas prices. On the other hand, the fixed-cost burden might be considered a liability in an environment in which generating costs and efficiencies are being improved, and fuel prices are stable or declining.

There are, therefore, two basic conceptual choices for the term of the transfer: permanent or limited term. A permanent transfer might be the simplest, but it has the greatest possibility of deviations from subsequently observed market values, primarily because of uncertainty-related discounting by the purchaser.

The alternative is a limited-term transfer, for example, an auction every five or ten years. The shorter the term, the closer the result will be to the observed market value of the system output.

The duration of the transferred rights will affect the perceived value of those rights. Uncertainty about future value might be reduced by shorter-term sales. A series of shorter-term auctions may produce higher prices for the sale of marketing rights than a one-time long-term sale if system value rises over time.

Purchasers of a longer-term right would take into account the potential net value above cost in the out years, but that net value would be discounted because of timing and (most likely) uncertainty below a simple sum of the forecast net values. A longer-term sale will produce more revenue up front than a series of shorter-term sales, depending on how purchasers perceive future risks. The relative values of a long-term sale compared to a series of short-term sales would have to be explored further using various parties? discount rates and expectations about net value of the system in future years.

Contract Constraints on Transfer of Nuclear Power Plant Assets and Liabilities

The Bonneville Power Administration assumed responsibility for paying the principal and interest on the bonds for the construction of the Washington Public Power Supply System's nuclear plants 1, 2 and 3. A transfer of the marketing rights of the federal system would have to address this responsibility. A preliminary examination of this question was conducted more than a decade ago. This analysis was focused on sale of the physical assets. The same issues would appear to be relevant to a lease or sale of the marketing rights.

The examination concluded that the various WPPSS-related contracts (bond resolutions, project agreements, net-billing agreements) appear to severely constrain the ability to assign the WPPSS marketing authority and financial liability away from Bonneville without, ultimately, the consent of the bondholders. The only alternative that offered a clear transfer path was to pay off the bonds at the time of transfer. Other approaches that did not require immediate payment were considered possible, but are affected by legal ambiguities that would need to be resolved or do not meet the test of completely transferring the assets away from Bonneville. Resolution of these questions would be a necessary condition for any sale of marketing rights.

7-C. Allocation of Benefits

How the possible benefits of the Federal Columbia River Power System are allocated is an important and difficult question for the region. Any change in the status quo has the potential to alter that allocation of benefits.

The Basis of the Benefits -- the Hydropower System

The essential "regional benefit" provided by Bonneville is financial -- the difference between a free-market price of electricity and the low historic costs of the hydropower system and its associated transmission system, largely constructed by the federal government. While much of that benefit has been diluted by past nuclear investments and by the general lowering of the market price level in recent years, that benefit was substantial at times in the past and could be substantial in the future, depending on changing electricity generating technologies and fuel markets.

Distribution of Regional Benefits

The benefits of the federal hydropower system were widely distributed in the region prior to 1973, when Bonneville's existing 20-year firm power contracts with investor-owned utilities were not renewed. Between 1974 and 1981, customers of investor-owned utilities had no access to firm power from the federal hydropower system. In 1981, as a result of the Power Act's residential exchange provisions, the financial benefits of federal hydropower were again made available to residential and small farm customers of investor-owned utilities. In 1985, Bonneville revised its average system cost methodology, and the residential exchange benefit to investor-owned utility customers was reduced. It is expected to be reduced even more after 1997, with the phase-out of the residential exchange. Although there have been changes over time, the primary beneficiaries of the hydropower system have historically been a wide spectrum of public and investor-owned utilities, and direct-service industrial customers.

The distribution of whatever future benefits can be produced by the system will be, at least in part, a function of the ownership of the rights to market the output of the system and the risk that goes with that ownership. One possible outcome might be continued federal ownership and continued willingness on the part of the federal government to be the ultimate bearer of risk, ensuring that the benefits of the power system go to some or all of Bonneville's traditional regional customers. Bonneville was created to achieve such public purposes as regional development, which go well beyond market risk and reward relationships. Whether the federal government will be willing to maintain the current allocation of risks and benefits in a world of competitive wholesale electricity transactions is a question the region must confront.

If some sale of the marketing rights is undertaken, the terms of the sale will, as discussed earlier, result in some distribution of risk and potential benefits between the Treasury and the buyer. Who the buyer is will determine who receives the buyer's share of potential benefits and risks. A private buyer will take the risks and return whatever future benefits can be produced to its investors. If the buyer is a consortium of Bonneville's current customers, then the risks and the potential benefits would be allocated to those customers. If the buyer is some entity created by the Northwest states, the benefits as well as the risks would go to the states to be further allocated as determined by the states, perhaps to taxpayers or to specific customers.

Marketing and Pricing

Historically, Bonneville has been constrained in its marketing of power from the Federal Columbia River Power System to giving preference first to its public agency customers and second to the region. The restrictions on out-of-region sales have recently been relaxed, but not eliminated. The term of out-of-region surplus sales is limited to seven years, and regional customers retain a right of first refusal on surplus sales (regional customers are given the opportunity to match the price offered by an out-of-region customer).

The marketing restrictions on Bonneville may not be as vital an issue for Bonneville customers today as they once were. The approximate convergence of increasing Bonneville costs and falling market prices have effectively eliminated the price advantage that Bonneville's power once carried. Some Bonneville customers have been willing, at least temporarily, to leave the federal system and the risks associated with that system in order to buy from the market. However, Bonneville's costs may be below market prices in the future. How should the power from the Federal Columbia River Power System be marketed now, when its costs are close to market prices, and in the future, when the costs may be below market prices? Should it be marketed on a preferential basis, with any surplus made available to the broader market, or should its marketing be unconstrained?

A corollary question has to do with the pricing of the power from the Federal Columbia River Power System. The below-market pricing of Bonneville power has historically been the mechanism by which benefits have been delivered to Bonneville's regional constituencies. The marketing of Bonneville power at cost has been a major reason why many Northwest utilities and their consumers have enjoyed rates well below the national average. This raises the question of how possible future benefits, to the extent they can be retained for the region, are to be returned -- in the form of prices that are again below market or in some other form, for example, cash dividends.

However, below-market pricing was one of the main inefficiencies that led to the dramatic over-investment in the region's nuclear plants in the late 1970s. This problem might or might not recur in the future. If the dividend is continued in the form of below-market prices, but Bonneville is no longer in the resource acquisition business (or is in it on the basis of specific acquisitions at market prices), then this distortion will be eliminated. If, however, Bonneville acquires new resources to meet its customers? load growth and sets its prices by averaging the costs of existing resources with those of the new acquisitions, it will be reinstating the price distortions of the 1970s. A better method of conveying the dividend to regional beneficiaries needs to be designed.

7-D. Public Purposes

The Federal Columbia River Power System has historically supported a number of "public purposes" beyond that of providing power to its customers at cost. These have included cost transfers that benefit different classes of customers, such as reduced rates for irrigation and low-density rural customers and the residential exchange that benefits the residential customers of investor-owned utilities. Some would also include centralized funding of conservation, activities to encourage renewable resource development, and other forms of research, development and demonstration. Fish and wildlife costs are a cost of producing power and are among the purposes for which the hydropower facilities are operated. Without attempting to sort out which costs truly cover public purposes, the question for the region is which of the public purposes should be maintained and how the region can best accomplish those purposes in the context of a competitive power market.

The principles of competitive markets suggest that subsidized rates are not the way to accomplish public purposes. Such rates are both inefficient and, because they cause the unsubsidized customers? rates to be higher, they create an opportunity for competitors to exploit. To the extent the power system can earn a profit, public purposes can be supported from those profits. To accomplish this, however, dividends for other purposes must be reduced. How to balance profits and public purposes is a legitimate policy decision that will have to be addressed in the course of the Comprehensive Review.

However, competitive markets don't guarantee profits. It may be that the power system cannot be counted upon to earn a profit or one that is sufficient to support both public purposes and the return requirements of the risk-bearing owners, whether public or private. If that is the case, other non-market mechanisms to support those public purposes may be required. These mechanisms could include a regulatory requirement applied to the monopoly elements of the business, a general tax or a charge for use of the transmission or distribution system, a tax on generation or fuel use, or development standards for new energy facilities.

7-E. Conclusions

Many argue that the Bonneville Power Administration, as currently configured, violates several of the principles for a competitive market. Bonneville combines generation and transmission in one entity. It has substantial market power. Market risk is ultimately borne by the Federal Treasury. And it carries out several public purposes that may be difficult to support in a competitive wholesale power market. At the same time, Bonneville is at the heart of the regional power system and embodies many of the values of the region. Deciding the future role of Bonneville is a key task of the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System. Successful resolution of the Bonneville question will set the stage for an efficient and competitive regional power system.

^ top

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

There are some resource issues that present a particular challenge in a competitive market. These include developing cost-effective conservation resources, maintaining progress on renewable resources and incorporating environmental considerations in resource decisions. Each of these is discussed in this chapter.

6-A. Cost-Effective Conservation

One of the goals of the Northwest Power Act is to achieve cost-effective energy conservation. However, conservation faces a radically different environment today than it did in prior Council power plans:

  • The alternative resource costs avoided by conservation are substantially lower, leaving fewer conservation measures cost-effective by comparison.
  • Retail prices for electricity can be expected to move closer to marginal costs, reducing or eliminating one of the economic arguments for utility funding of conservation.
  • Competitive pressures make it difficult for utilities to spend money on conservation programs.

These changes, taken together, mean that utilities, including the Bonneville Power Administration, will be unable to secure all the remaining cost-effective conservation as they did in the past. Bonneville is a special case. The agency has long supported efficiency efforts through its public utility customers. As Bonneville began to redesign its approach to conservation, it asked its public utility customers to underwrite more of their own programs. Bonneville at first agreed to provide back up if the utilities were unable to secure enough energy savings to meet regional goals set in the 1991 Power Plan. However, because the public utilities can purchase electricity in a market where other providers do not finance conservation, the Council doesn't expect Bonneville to continue supplementing public utility efforts to meet regional conservation goals.

Nonetheless, cost-effective conservation is still an important resource, and the region must be open-minded and creative in finding new ways to capture the economic and environmental benefits conservation can provide. The Council suggests that the Comprehensive Review and appropriate state forums evaluate the costs and benefits of new mechanisms to acquire conservation beyond what will naturally be developed in the market. The goal should be a competitive market that preserves as much of the conservation benefit as possible.

This section assesses how much cost-effective conservation is available, its benefits and risks, how much will likely be adopted by the market, and what kinds of conservation measures will be a challenge to secure without some extra-market effort. If additional mechanisms for acquiring energy savings are needed, can they be cost-effectively implemented without interfering with the operation of a competitive electricity market?

Utilities and Conservation: A New Paradigm

In the 1970s and 1980s, the costs to build new generating resources were generally higher than the costs of existing resources. Electricity prices were usually based on average costs, so the revenue from new loads did not cover the costs of building new resources to serve new loads. Serving new loads raised everyone's prices. Utilities became vehicles for spreading the costs of new resources (of whatever type – generation or conservation) among customers, whether or not the customers contributed to load growth. Customers who shared the cost of other customers' service tolerated the situation because their energy bills would have been higher yet if they left the utility to self-generate.

In that world, it was reasonable for utilities to have an important role in acquiring conservation. They were already in the business of spreading new-load costs among all customers. Sharing the cost of conservation, while more contentious than sharing the cost of new generation, was not fundamentally different. If a conservation measure reduced the total cost of meeting load growth, it was possible (though not simple) to make all customers better off. Because self-generation was unattractive compared to utility service, and transmission access was restricted, utilities' monopoly franchise was relatively safe, and utilities could impose some cost-shifting on their customers without disastrous effects on their stockholders.

The world today is much different. Lower natural gas prices, better generating technologies and the opening of transmission and, possibly distribution, access have or will combine to make it attractive for some customers to leave utilities for independent suppliers or self-generation. Utilities are beginning to respond to this threat by offering these customers prices that approach the marginal cost of service. If competition develops fully, utilities will not be able to allocate to these customers any part of other customers' costs of service (generation or conservation).

To the extent that customers do not share others' costs of generation, much of the rationale for sharing the costs of conservation disappears, along with the utility's ability to do so. In a competitive world, new-load revenues cover their own costs, except for environmental externalities. Other customers are mostly indifferent to the efficiency of use by new loads, since new loads pay their own way. As a result, a fully competitive utility cannot sustain cost transfers among customers for investments in conservation, even if the conservation is cheaper than generating alternatives.

The utility industry as it stands today is not fully competitive. For example, utilities still have monopoly franchises, and marginal retail prices for some customers do not equal marginal costs. Most utilities, however, are anticipating competition, if not already experiencing some of its manifestations. As a result, the exact role of conservation in the changing world is unclear. Many utilities are taking a cautious attitude toward the further development of conservation as a resource during this current period of uncertainty. Investments in conservation, mostly up-front capital investment, run the risk of becoming stranded investments in a competitive marketplace.

Many utilities will continue to pursue conservation because their customers and governing boards want them to do so. But it is unlikely that the part of the electricity business that is competitive will have an interest in, or be able to sustain, large investments in conservation over the long run, unless that conservation is directly funded by the customer who installs the measures.

How Much Conservation has the Region Achieved?

The Northwest has made great strides toward improving the efficiency of its electricity use. As described in Chapter 4, during the 15 years following the passage of the Northwest Power Act in 1980, the region's consumers secured nearly 1,000 average megawatts of energy-efficiency improvements through utility conservation programs. Utilities paid about half as much for these energy savings as they would have had to pay for alternative electrical resources available during that period.

In addition, there were substantial efficiency gains from improved residential and commercial energy codes. The two most populous states in the region, Oregon and Washington, and several local jurisdictions in Idaho and Montana, adopted energy codes for new residential and commercial buildings that meet the Council's original model conservation standards. These codes, among the most rigorous in the nation, have already resulted in significant savings. They will continue to add hundreds of megawatts of cost-effective savings over the next 20 years and beyond. The work of state energy offices and local governments, combined with Bonneville and utility support, has been critical to the adoption and implementation of these codes.

At the federal level, minimum efficiency standards were established for major residential appliances. The federal energy standards for new manufactured homes were also revised for the first time since 1976. And the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 established new efficiency standards for some lamps, lighting equipment, electric motors, commercial heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment, and shower heads. These standards will result in savings that do not have to be sought through utility programs.

How Much Remains to be Done?

The amount of conservation that is cost-effective to develop depends upon how fast the demand for electricity grows, future alternative resource costs and year-to-year variations in water conditions. [For example, if economic growth follows the Council's medium-low forecast, the region will need to add approximately 145 average megawatts of new resources each year. However, if regional economic growth is at the Council's medium-high forecast, nearly 425 average megawatts of new resources will be needed each year.] Figure 6-1 shows the amount of conservation that would be cost-effective to develop across a wide range of future electricity use patterns, gas prices and hydropower availability. The amount ranges from a low of about 800 average megawatts, when demand growth and gas prices are low, to a high of about 2,300 average megawatts, corresponding to a future of high demand and high gas prices. The average amount of regionally cost-effective conservation the Council has identified is approximately 1,535 average megawatts. [This is the total amount of conservation achievable, given sufficient economic and political resources, over a 20-year period in the medium forecast. The 1,535 average megawatts of cost-effective potential identified in this plan is very different than the 1,500 average megawatts referenced in the 1991 plan. In this draft plan, the 1,535 average megawatts is the average amount of conservation developed in a 20-year period across all potential futures (such as low and high gas prices or load growth). In the 1991 plan, the 1,500 average megawatts was cost-effective achievable conservation over a 10-year period assuming medium-high load growth.]

Figure 6-1. Distribution of Energy Savings Developed in Alternative Futures

Table 6-1 shows the conservation savings potential by sector and end-use. Approximately one third of this potential is in new and existing non-aluminum-industry facilities. The Council has not estimated the amount of conservation that may be available in the aluminum industry, but there is undoubtedly some additional potential in that sector as well. The next largest source of potential savings is in residential water heating and laundry equipment, which represents about one-fifth of the total potential. New residential and commercial buildings make up about one-quarter of the cost-effective potential. The remaining potential is spread among existing residential buildings and appliances, existing commercial buildings and irrigated agriculture. The average levelized cost of these resources is approximately 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. [These levelized costs do not include the 10-percent credit given to conservation in the Northwest Power Act.] This is roughly two-thirds of the cost of new generating resources.

Table 6-1. Average Achievable Conservation Potential by End Use or Sector

End Use or Sector Average Megawatts Average Levelized Cost (Cents/kWh)
Freezers

15

1.9
Refrigerators

45

2.9
Water Heating

335

2.0
Residential Lighting

30

2.6
New Residential Space Heating

140

2.1
Existing Residential Space Heating

25

1.8
New Commercial

230

1.3
Existing Commercial

95

1.4
Commercial Renovation/Remodel

50

1.3
New Non-Aluminum Industrial

225

1.5
Existing Non-Aluminum Industrial

335

1.5
Direct Service Aluminum Industrial

Not Estimated

Not Estimated
Irrigated Agriculture

10

1.8
TOTAL

1,535

1.7

Conservation's Benefits, Uncertainties and Risks

The development of cost-effective conservation is the highest priority electricity resource in the Northwest Power Act. To be considered "cost-effective," conservation must be less costly than the next similarly available and reliable generating resource. The goal of each Council power plan has been to find the mix of conservation and new power supplies that produces the lowest total present-value cost of meeting the region's energy service needs. In the near term, to be cost-effective, the levelized cost of a conservation resource must be less than the estimated levelized cost of market purchases from out of region. Once the transmission system cannot accommodate further purchases from outside the region, conservation must have a lower levelized cost than new natural gas-fired combustion turbines.

The Council has historically viewed the costs and benefits of investing in the region's energy future from a long-term perspective. It has tried to weigh the costs of investments made in new resources over the 20-year planning horizon against the benefits they could return to the citizens of the Northwest over the resources' useful lives. The fact that people tend to place greater weight on near-term costs and benefits than those that might occur far in the future is accommodated by discounting future costs and benefits. [For this plan, a base discount rate of 4.75 percent was used.]

Conservation investments have three characteristics that must be taken into consideration in this sort of long-term perspective. First, the costs of conservation are virtually all capital. This means there are no operating costs that can be avoided if, for example, demand grows less quickly than expected or fuel prices fall. Second, for this analysis we have assumed that all energy savings are amortized over 15 years, even though some savings have much longer useful lives. This means the costs are front-loaded, while the benefits are frequently spread out over a longer period. Finally, some of the conservation is very long-lived. As a result of all these factors, a long-term perspective exposes conservation investments to uncertainty and risk.

Countering these characteristics is the fact that the investment in conservation is made incrementally. On average, the pace of acquiring all 1,535 average megawatts of cost-effective conservation would be about 75 average megawatts per year. This means that the region can (and should) regularly revisit the economic merits of further investments in conservation. This limits the risk of potential over-investment. In the following paragraphs, the analysis of the long-term value of conservation is described along with the effects of key uncertainties and risks.

Analysis of the Long-Term Benefits of Conservation

The analysis was structured to estimate first the conservation that is likely to be developed as a result of the momentum of current utility programs and what consumers acting on their own are expected to secure in the longer term. This amounts to 515 average megawatts of conservation available at an average cost of 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. This conservation was assumed to be implemented on a fixed schedule: 70 average megawatts per year the first two years, 60 average megawatts per year the next two years, 30 average megawatts the fifth year and 15 average megawatts per year thereafter. The levels and schedule were estimated from a survey of current utility plans, and by identifying those resources that consumers would be more likely to adopt on their own, such as those that increase productivity in an industrial plant.

The remaining conservation was grouped into levelized cost increments of between 1.0 cent per kilowatt-hour and 4.0 cents per kilowatt-hour. These resources were assumed to be developed to meet loads as needed. The most cost-effective resources were developed first.

Table 6-2 shows the average present-value benefit to the region of developing each of the conservation resources. Also shown are the total tons of carbon dioxide offset by the conservation. This could become important should a carbon tax be required to mitigate global climate change.

Table 6-2. Regional Benefit of Conservation Resource Development
[The present-value benefits shown in Table 6-2 do not include the 10-percent credit provided conservation in the Northwest Power Act.]

Conservation Block Average Present Value ($ Millions) Average Megawatts Carbon Dioxide Offset (Millions of Tons)
Utility Momentum Plus Market Driven

$ 570

515

27
Less than 1.0 Cents/kWh

$ 760

310

16
More than 1.0 and less than 2.0 Cents/kWh

$ 830

525

27
More than 2.0 and less than 3.0 Cents/kWh

$ 140

185

10
Total

$ 2,300

1,535

80

As can be seen in Table 6-2, the average total present-value benefit of developing the region's remaining cost-effective conservation potential is $2.3 billion. Investments in conservation, beyond those anticipated to be made by utilities and consumers, could secure $1.7 billion in benefits ($2.3 billion minus $570 million). To place these values in perspective, the estimated present-value cost for all resources, except conservation, needed to meet the region's electricity load growth over the next 20 years is $27.7 billion. By making these cost-effective investments in conservation, this "bill" could be lowered to $25.4 billion.

It is important to acknowledge that the majority of the benefit shown in Table 6-2 occurs over the long term, beyond the 20-year planning horizon. The power plan looks at the value of resources developed over 20 years to meet load growth. However, for a resource built in any given year that has a longer lifetime than the 20-year forecast horizon, the costs and benefits of that resource for its entire lifetime are counted. Consider, for example, either a combustion turbine or an equivalent amount of conservation developed in 2000. Both are financed over 15 years, both have 30-year lifetimes and both will produce or save kilowatt-hours well beyond the 2015 forecast horizon. Figure 6-2 shows the cost profile for these two resources over time.

If these two resources were evaluated only up to the year 2015, all of the costs of the conservation would be included, but the fuel and maintenance costs of the combustion turbine after 2015 would be missed. Until the year 2015, the two resources are fairly comparable in total costs, and both resources produce an equal amount of benefits (i.e., energy). But after 2015, conservation continues to produce savings for the region at very minimal cost. The turbine produces value after 2015, too, but at much higher cost. To capture the benefits and costs of resources acquired by 2015, the costs and benefits over their entire lifetimes need to be incorporated. The effects of uncertainty regarding future electrical generation costs have been addressed in the Council's analysis and are discussed below.

Figure 6-2. Resource Costs and Benefits Valued Over Their Productive Lifetimes

Effect of Fuel Price, Demand and Hydropower Uncertainty

While the average present value of the conservation is of interest, it is important to have a sense of how that value might change with respect to the uncertainty in fuel prices, demand growth and hydropower conditions. Figure 6-3 shows the distribution of present-value benefits produced by the investments in conservation. The acquisition of this additional conservation produces a benefit to the region of between $0 and $4.5 billion over the next 20 years, with an average of $2.3 billion, as reported above. The range of values is a result of the specific combination of economic growth, fuel prices and hydroelectric availability the region experiences over the next 20 years.

On a long-term basis, the conservation investment is robust, with the region always being better off if it invests in conservation. The reason conservation remains valuable over the wide range of futures modeled here is because the conservation is relatively low cost and the cost-effectiveness of additional investments in conservation are continually assessed as the region invests over time. In futures in which low load growth and/or low gas prices occur, the region slows its investments and develops much less than 1,535 average megawatts. The range of conservation development due to such factors is shown in Figure 6-1. Conservation's characteristic of being developed in increments over time is valuable, because decisions about additional development can be deferred until the savings are needed. If the region were to commit today to developing exactly 1,535 average megawatts over the next 20 years, without adjusting for load growth or other factors, there would be a significant number of cases in which present-value costs exceed the benefits.

Figure 6-3. Distribution of Present-Value Benefits of Conservation Over Full Resource Life

Additional Risks and Uncertainties

The Council's base-case analysis accounts for much of the uncertainty associated with fuel prices, demand and hydroelectric conditions. However, there are additional uncertainties and risks to which conservation investment is exposed. While some of these risks reduce the average value of the conservation, in all cases there remains significant value. There are also risks that significantly increase the value of conservation. Many would argue that these risks are at least as likely as those risks that reduce the value of conservation.

Figure 6-4 illustrates the base-case analysis and multiple sensitivity analyses that were conducted.

Figure 6-4. Summary of Conservation Sensitivity Study Results

Market driven and utility momentum: The first bar in Figure 6-4 illustrates average present-value savings to the region if conservation is developed through utility momentum and the market. This is not all the cost-effective savings that could be acquired over the 20-year forecast horizon.

All conservation below 3.0 cents per kilowatt-hour: The second bar shows average present-value savings if all cost-effective conservation is developed. The remaining sensitivity cases in the figure are described next.

Conservation potential reduced by 25 percent: The Council relies on the best information and analysis it can produce in estimating the amount of conservation available for development. However, those estimates are subject to some uncertainty. Some parties have criticized the analysis for estimating too much conservation, others for estimating too little. To evaluate the risk associated with overestimating the conservation potential, the analysis was re-run using the proposed lower estimates of achievable potential – a reduction of about 25 percent. This reduces the average present value of conservation from $2.3 billion to $1.7 billion.

Large loss of firm load: The primary risk the region takes in purchasing conservation is that once the capital is invested it can no longer be used for some other purpose. Virtually all of the cost of conservation is a fixed, up-front capital cost, which is repaid in savings over many years. Once the capital is spent on a conservation measure, there is no simple way to recover its value, other than to wait for the savings to accrue. If the region were to suddenly lose a large amount of load, some of the conservation investment would not be needed.

This possibility was investigated by assuming that the region loses 3,000 average megawatts of electrical load in the year 2005 as a result of industrial plant closures or economic downturn. In this scenario, the development of cost-effective conservation still provides the region with $1.9 billion in present-value savings, compared to $2.3 billion in the base case. This is a result of three factors. First, because the region is already relying heavily on market purchases to meet its needs, it can respond to rapid changes in loads by curtailing purchases. Second, less than 10 percent of the conservation that is typically developed by the year 2005 has a levelized life-cycle cost to the region of more than 2.0 cents per kilowatt-hour. Since it is less expensive than continued market purchases, it retains its value to the region. Third, because the conservation is implemented incrementally at about 75 average megawatts per year, further conservation investment can be reduced when the loss of load occurs.

Cost drop by 50 percent: Another way in which conservation investment could be at risk is if there were some dramatic and unanticipated improvement in generation technology that would reduce the value of conservation savings. This was tested by assuming that some technological breakthrough reduces the cost of new generation by nearly 50 percent (to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour) in the year 2005 and that this source of power is immediately available to serve all regional loads. The costs of this resource were assumed to be all variable costs, and thus it would have complete flexibility to be turned on and off to meet load fluctuations. Should this occur, it would reduce conservation's average present-value benefit to the region to approximately $800 million.

Carbon tax added: Not all the risks the power system faces are adverse to conservation. As is discussed later in this chapter, there is the risk that measures might be imposed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases thought to be contributing to global climate change. This risk was simulated by assuming a tax of between $10 and $40 per ton of carbon dioxide is implemented in 2005. Such measures could increase the value of conservation to the region by between $3.2 and $6.1 billion.

Net Annual Expenditures for Conservation Over Time

As noted above, conservation requires more money up front than purchasing electricity from the West Coast market in the near term. In the longer term, however, conservation reduces yearly expenditures for power purchases and defers new power plant additions. The Council compared the yearly cost of developing conservation versus buying power from the market in the near term and developing gas-fired generation in the longer term to assess the magnitude of the near-term risk created by purchasing conservation. Figure 6-5 shows the annual net cost to the region of acquiring conservation by the year 2015 under three different acquisition schedules.

The first schedule shows the annual net cost of acquiring the 515 average megawatts of conservation utilities are already planning to acquire plus the conservation the market might accomplish on its own. This is labeled "Market Driven and Utility Momentum." The second schedule, labeled "Market Driven and Utility Momentum Plus Conservation Below 3.0 Cents per Kilowatt-Hour" adds the annual net cost of capturing the remaining cost-effective conservation to the 515 average megawatts developed in the first schedule. The third schedule, labeled "Least-Cost Acquisition Schedule of Conservation Below 3.0 Cents per Kilowatt-Hour" develops all conservation in least-cost order. The "zero" line represents the cost of relying on market purchases and new gas-fired generation in lieu of capturing any conservation. A positive figure represents net cost to the region, while a negative figure represents a net savings.

As shown in Figure 6-5, the combination of utility program momentum and consumer actions, results in a pace of conservation acquisition that will require an investment of about $40 million annually more than the cost of relying on alternative resources through the year 2003. [Of the 700 average megawatts of conservation needed to meet load growth through the year 2003, approximately 335 average megawatts are anticipated to be developed by utilities and consumers without further market intervention.] Developing the additional conservation needed to meet load growth would add only approximately $7 million per year in "new" investments beyond those anticipated to result from current utility plans and market expenditures. [It should be noted that actual utility expenditures are expected to be only a portion of this amount due to consumer cost-sharing.]

Net costs are higher in the early years because so much of the conservation results from utility programs and contract commitments that have not been fully adjusted to the lower avoided costs the region is now seeing. As a result, some of this conservation is more expensive than that which would be acquired on a least-cost basis. However, if the region's consumers and utilities are able to develop lower-cost conservation first, roughly the same amount of conservation is acquired, but at about one-third of the annual net cost. This can be seen by comparing the line labeled "Least Cost Acquisition Schedule for Conservation Below 3.0 Cents per Kilowatt-Hour" to the other two lines in Figure 6-5.

Figure 6-5. Annual Net Cost of Conservation Resource Acquisitions
Compared to Reliance on Power Purchases and New Generating Resource Acquisitions

Will the Remaining Cost-Effective Conservation Be Achieved?

It appears that the region could secure significant economic benefits by developing its remaining cost-effective conservation. In the past, Bonneville and the region's utilities were positioned both economically and institutionally to acquire all cost-effective conservation. Competition is changing that. Before discussing whether there is a need for new alternatives, this section discusses how much conservation the region might reasonably anticipate being developed by utilities, consumers and the energy service industry in response to the evolving competitive market.

Utility-Funded Conservation

Historically, Bonneville and the region's utilities have served as the primary agents for conservation resource development in the Northwest. In the near term, the Council's survey of electric utilities indicates that they intend to continue to acquire approximately 250 megawatts of energy savings by the year 2000, or about 60 to 70 megawatts per year.

Among public utilities, informal surveys indicate that many want to continue to offer energy saving opportunities to their customers both as a service and to achieve conservation at lower utility costs. Many of these utilities are augmenting Bonneville funds, carried forward from previous years, to continue conservation over the next few years.

The investor-owned utilities are operating under least-cost planning orders from their regulators. While many of these utilities have reduced their expenditures on conservation, in large part because of the declining avoided cost, they have still committed to developing fairly large amounts of the conservation resource in the next few years. [Avoided costs have come down dramatically since the early 1990s, and as a result, less conservation is cost-effective. This means that the yearly amount of conservation that is targeted by utilities is less than it once was, but in the next few years it is still significant.] Many of the investor-owned utilities have indicated that their plans to carry out conservation programs in the near-term are designed to help position them for a more competitive world in the long-run. This includes reducing the cost of utility conservation programs, focusing on markets where competition could cause the loss of customers, and favoring consumer information and loans over rebates.

As competitive pressures increase, both public and investor-owned utilities are expected to further reduce their efficiency efforts.

Consumer-Developed Conservation

Consumers will continue to develop some conservation on their own, regardless of the actions of utilities or other parties. Consumers invest in conservation for many reasons in addition to the fact that efficiency improvements save them money. These reasons include comfort, productivity enhancements, environmental concerns and so on. [Consumers will also adopt energy-efficiency measures that, if evaluated solely from their electricity benefits, are above the regional cost-effectiveness limit because these measures have significant non-energy value, such as comfort, productivity or product quality improvements. The Council has not attempted to estimate the size of this conservation resource, and it is not included in the estimates of cost-effective conservation discussed in this plan.]

How much conservation consumers will develop depends on how well the market for energy efficiency functions. One criterion for a well-functioning market is prices that accurately reflect the cost of the next increment of consumption. In the past, consumers' power rates were much lower than the marginal cost of electricity. In the more competitive environment, the price consumers pay for electricity will likely converge with the marginal cost of electricity supply. [We expect competition to result in a trend toward unbundling of electricity rates - separating the costs of the kilowatt-hours delivered from the fixed costs of delivering the electricity and lowering the price of the kilowatt-hours. Only through such unbundling can consumers compare their supply alternatives on an apples and apples basis. Lower prices and unbundling will reduce the disincentive utilities experience when conservation cuts into their recovery of fixed costs. It will also reduce the consumer's economic incentive to conserve.] If this occurs, then one of the two key elements of a functioning market will be in place; marginal prices will approximate marginal costs. [Marginal costs are unlikely to reflect all environmental costs of electricity production, so there will not be a completely accurate price signal.]

However, there is another, equally essential element of a functioning market: that buyers and sellers can make well-informed choices. Good information implies that: 1) the decision-maker has timely and accurate knowledge; and 2) the decision-maker has enough confidence in that knowledge to base decisions on it.

The lack of good information in electricity and conservation markets takes the following forms: low awareness of how energy and efficiency could be applied in homes and businesses; lack of adequate and quality information that gives the end-user a clear-cut, reliable course to follow; lack of access to capital and conflicting uses for capital; and a disconnect between the decision-maker contemplating efficiency choices and the consumer who pays the electricity bill. An example of this latter "split-incentive" problem is a home builder who builds a house on speculation and wants to minimize first cost, and the eventual homeowner who will ultimately pay the utility bill and has little understanding of long-term energy costs. The lack of good information in its various forms constitutes a barrier to the functioning of the market for energy efficiency.

There is an old joke about the economist who passes by a $20 bill on the sidewalk. When asked why he passed it by, he replied that it can't be a real $20 bill because somebody would already have found it and picked it up. Despite economic theory, the experience of the past 15 years of conservation implementation is full of examples of $20 bills left on the sidewalk and in homes, offices and factories because of market barriers. Market barriers make it unlikely that consumers will take advantage of all cost-effective energy-efficiency improvements.

An example is the fact that many consumers pass up opportunities to buy more efficient appliances, even when the energy saved by the more efficient appliances, evaluated at the consumers' cost of electricity, would offset the extra capital cost of the appliance in a matter of months. Interpreted as investment opportunities, these efficient appliances can be very attractive to consumers; they might return 30 percent to 50 percent or more on the initial investment. But relatively few consumers evaluate their purchases in those terms. Similar patterns of consumer choice show up in residential and commercial buildings and in the industrial sector.

Conservation Developed by the Competitive Market

There are certain types of activities that utilities and energy service companies are likely to pursue as the emerging industry structure becomes more apparent. ["Energy service companies" are companies that offer demand-side management services, including conservation. The term appears to be evolving, and is now used to denote companies that are interested in general energy services, including choice of fuels and load shifting.] Utilities and energy service companies are interested in providing consumer information to overcome the market barriers described above to the extent that it allows them to make a profit.

The types of products and services that will promote conservation and align with the business interests of utilities or energy service companies are those that promote customer loyalty and satisfaction, or that can be offered at a profit. In a competitive market, the cost of kilowatt-hours from different suppliers will vary only slightly. As a result, conservation services might be one tool in an arsenal of options to differentiate one supplier's product from another's and create customer loyalty.

Manufacturers of efficient products will also have an interest in promoting their products. For example, Honeywell wants commercial building managers to adopt Honeywell's energy management system. However, efficiency is usually just one feature in a whole host of features that consumers are searching for in a particular product. As a result, the market niche for efficient products is usually small, unless it is packaged with key additional features.

The common thread in these approaches to conservation is that they will increase the viability and/or profitability of the company providing the service by offering superior and/or differentiated products that are desired by customers. Mostly they are products or services that can be charged directly to the benefiting customer, and the customer values them enough to pay a price premium. These services cannot be supported by other customers, because the benefits do not accrue to all customers, but to the customer that directly installs the conservation. They are primarily market-driven efficiency services.

The following are the types of conservation services that are likely to be developed in a more competitive electricity market.

Customer retention services: Energy companies that want to build customer loyalty may help the customer find ways to reduce the cost of electricity use. For example, in an effort to retain their business, Puget Sound Power and Light recently included conservation services in a package to one of its larger customers who was investigating alternative power suppliers.

Enhanced services: Some energy companies may elect to offer services rather than energy sales (kilowatt-hours) to their customers. An example might be selling air compression to an industrial firm. Rather than charging for the electricity used to energize the air compressor, the energy service company would charge for the amount of compressed air used. In this situation, it is in the interest of the energy service company to produce the compressed air at the lowest possible cost. If the cost of improving efficiency is lower than the energy cost, they will have an incentive to improve efficiency.

Fees for expertise: Energy companies will sell their ability to help customers reduce their costs, increase their comfort and productivity, or both. The fee represents a sharing of the cost savings between the customer and the energy service company. For example, Western Montana Generation and Transmission Company is considering opportunities such as charging for audits of homes heated with electricity or natural gas.

Differentiation from competitor's products: Some energy providers may try to capture a market niche based on environmental or societal values. These companies will promote "green pricing" or the fact that they are a "green" company, offering energy-efficiency services to secure particular customers. Working Assets Long Distance is an example of this strategy in the telephone industry. A number of electric utilities around the nation, including Portland General Electric and Salem Electric in the Northwest, have tried various approaches to offering green services, with mixed success.

Efficient use of the distribution system: In either a competitive or regulated environment, it will make sense for utilities owning distribution systems to utilize those systems fully. This means reducing power losses on the distribution system itself, as well as load management and load reduction on customers' facilities that might otherwise require more costly system upgrades.

Community values: A number of utilities in the Northwest, particularly some of the public utilities, have offered conservation programs because their customers viewed it as the right thing to do. To the extent that the conservation ethic persists, some utilities will continue to pursue conservation that satisfies their customers.

Conservation Development Experiences in More Competitive Markets

The electricity industry in the Northwest is not the first to undergo major restructuring. The Council reviewed the experience in other countries and industries to assess the probability that conservation's apparent benefits to the region will be secured in a more competitive energy service market. This review revealed the following:

  • Experience in all five countries where the electricity industry has been opened to competition shows that the acquisition of conservation tends to decrease in newly competitive markets, and that private conservation companies have not emerged as strongly or as quickly as predicted. [Lance Hoch and Linton Parker, "Sustainable Energy Policy in Competitive Electricity Markets: what's Been Tried, What Works and What Doesn't," Proceedings of the Fourth International Energy Efficiency & DSM Conference: The Global Challenge, Berlin, Germany, October 1995, pp. 503-511.]
  • Experience from the U.S. gas industry, which has been deregulated for 10 years, indicates that niche markets have developed for conservation, but it has not been widespread.
  • Very recent experience of a few energy service companies indicates that those that do not rely on shared savings and/or utility financial support, but instead provide a building with specific end-use services (e.g., lighting, space conditioning, etc.) for a fixed annual fee (with adjustments for inflation and weather) may successfully penetrate a limited market niche (e.g., large office buildings).

Conservation Program Evaluations and their Estimation of Market Effects

Evaluations of previously operated conservation programs are also a source of information on what the market might accomplish. In some of these evaluations, the utility tried to ascertain how much of the savings might have occurred in the market even without the utility program. [The evaluation community has used the term "free-rider" to denote the portion of participants in a utility program that would have done the conservation on their own. This is an estimate of what the market would have accomplished without the utility program.] For the Northwest, evaluations from the industrial sector provide the most information on what the market would have done without the program. The evaluations indicate that approximately 5 percent to 15 percent of the savings from various programs would have been done anyway, even without the utility's help. This indicates that without some sort of information, or financial help, or both, the market will achieve some, but not all, cost-effective conservation on its own.

Additional Opportunities for Conservation Development

The types of conservation that are most at risk of being bypassed in a competitive market are those that do not align with the business interest of a provider, such as an energy service company. Utilities and energy service companies may not have much business interest in intervening if the conservation resource is small and widely dispersed in thousands of facilities, and the profit margin to pursue each of these individually is small. For example, more efficient refrigerators save individual consumers about $4 per year. This is too little to overcome the high administrative costs of pursuing these savings on a customer-by-customer basis. However, if the savings can be achieved in the aggregate, for example, through the manufacturer, they are significant.

There are several types of conservation resources that may be difficult to secure in a competitive environment. These include:

  • State energy codes
  • Federal appliance efficiency standards
  • Demonstration of emerging technologies and systems
  • Market transformation efforts
  • Instances in which the conservation decision is not made by the energy bill payer, such as rentals.

Options for Conservation Development in the Long-Term

Of the $2.3 billion in savings that can be expected if all cost-effective conservation is developed, approximately $1.7 billion falls into the category of savings that seem unlikely to be produced through near-term utility commitment or, in the long run, by a competitive electricity market. What follows is a discussion of alternative ways the Northwest can secure the remaining energy savings.

Give the Market a Chance

The Northwest could focus its efforts on developing more competitive electricity markets and wait to see what the effect is on conservation acquisition. Because many utilities still intend to pursue conservation development for various reasons, and some government programs also will garner energy savings, acquisition over the next three to four years is likely to be substantial.

New/Revised Mechanisms

The region could focus on activities that would encourage development of the most cost-effective conservation during the transition to a more competitive electricity market. This might include providing appropriate regulatory signals for existing investor-owned utilities and focusing on resources that might be lost during the transition from the current regulatory compact to any new market. Potential forms of new and revised mechanisms might include the following:

Require conservation as a "public good" in exchange for a monopoly franchise at the distribution level: Even in a competitive electricity market, distribution companies are likely to remain monopolies. They will have no incentive to pursue conservation as a least-cost resource. However, if regulators for investor-owned utilities, and the public for public utilities, think that conservation has benefits that should not be lost, then some level of conservation services on the part of the distribution company might be required in exchange for the monopoly franchise. To make this work, the distribution company should have its profits disconnected from its sales of kilowatt-hours.

System benefits charge: A frequently discussed option to raise funds for conservation resources that might not be captured by the open market is a "system benefits charge." The system benefits charge is a fee assessed broadly across the electricity system that is non-bypassable and is used to develop conservation. Exactly how these funds are raised and how they would be spent would need to be fully explored. [For example, PacifiCorp has initiated a discussion on how to develop conservation in the more competitive world, which looks into exactly these questions. Two white papers have been developed by PacifiCorp to aid in the discussion.] The idea, however, is similar to the levy on phone bills to provide 911 emergency calling and universal service for low-income and physically impaired customers. Almost every active restructuring process in the United States is calling for a system benefits charge or something very similar to maintain some level of energy-efficiency services. The same is true of many international restructuring decisions, such as those in the United Kingdom, Norway and New Zealand.

Conservation as part of meeting load growth or developing new generating resources: Another option that might be used to encourage conservation development would be a requirement that a certain percentage of load growth be met through conservation efforts. Investments beyond the required offset could be banked or sold on an open market. Utilities, generation resource developers and others could obtain, bank and sell conservation offsets. The system would be similar to the market developed around sulfur-dioxide emissions.

Recommendation

Council analysis indicates that there is a substantial amount of cost-effective conservation available for acquisition in the region. Approximately 20 to 30 percent of this conservation will likely be acquired in the restructured electricity industry through market forces and momentum from existing utility action. If the remaining 70 to 80 percent of the savings are not acquired, the result would be higher power system costs than would be the case if the total amount of cost-effective conservation was acquired.

In the regulated utility paradigm, mechanisms to acquire conservation were available that resulted in relatively little disruption of the market. The new utility structure, especially in generation and supply markets, is much more competitive. Competitive markets are sensitive to factors such as cross subsidies or incorrect price signals and will tend to exploit these factors where they occur.

The Council suggests that the Comprehensive Review and appropriate state forums evaluate the costs and benefits of potential mechanisms to acquire conservation beyond what will be developed in the market. The goal should be a competitive market that preserves as much of the net conservation benefit as possible.

These mechanisms should reflect the principles outlined below.

  • Any intervention should be competitively neutral, and not give one electricity or other energy resource provider an advantage relative to another. Intervention should not interfere with the market pricing of electricity and the operation of a competitive electricity market. For example, use of a non-bypassable charge on distribution minimizes the ability for competitive electricity suppliers to avoid the charge. At the same time, the magnitude of the charge must not upset the competitive balance between electricity and natural gas or other fuel suppliers.
  • Any intervention should complement the competitive market for energy services that might emerge. This might include a strategy for those types of conservation actions that need a kick-start, but that can eventually be handed over to the competitive market. In this case, the strategy should include signals for when to cease the intervention.
  • Any intervention should provide some symmetry between those who pay for the intervention and those who receive its benefits.
  • Any intervention should be administratively efficient to gain the greatest net benefits possible.
  • Any intervention should use competitive mechanisms to the greatest extent possible when acting to secure the conservation resource.
  • Any intervention should incorporate performance assurance mechanisms to secure the savings.

Conservation: What to Do Now

During the transition to more competitive electricity markets, the Council has identified 10 things utilities, regulators, end-users, governments and the conservation industry can do to help maximize conservation benefits, minimize conservation costs and smooth the transition.

  1. Take advantage of the conservation momentum and the near-term resource surplus to reconsider and perhaps redesign conservation programs and strategies.
  2. Identify and market the non-energy benefits of efficiency, including increased industrial productivity, comfort, environmental compliance and enhanced property value.
  3. Share conservation ideas, plans, successes and failures. With more than 100 utilities and many governments in the region putting conservation programs together, there are bound to be plenty of new ideas.
  4. Continue the development of cost-effective lost-opportunity resources. These are resources that if not acquired now will become either physically impractical or uneconomical to pursue in the future.
  5. Support market transformation efforts to achieve cost-effective electricity conservation at lower costs. Market transformation efforts target decision-makers, such as manufacturers and retail chains.
  6. Provide ongoing accessible consumer information about cost-effective electricity conservation.
  7. Explore changing rate structures so that fixed costs are recovered in fixed charges, and energy rates reflect the utilities' marginal cost. For example, utilities may increase their monthly service charge to recover fixed costs and set kilowatt-hour rates at or close to marginal costs. Reducing the recovery of fixed costs through marginal sales could eliminate the "lost revenue" problem associated with conservation and permit utilities to pursue conservation that costs them less than short-term marginal costs. This will, however, tend to reduce the consumer's economic incentive for conservation.
  8. Explore ways to reduce the direct cost of utility conservation.
  9. Explore ways to reduce the financial risk from conservation. Some utilities are seeking to accelerate amortization or to expense, rather than capitalize, the cost of new conservation, both of which reduce the cost of conservation financing. Although expensing rather than capitalizing intensifies the rate impact of conservation in the short run, these actions reduce the longer-term risk of stranded assets.
  10. Consider a focus on customers that can seek electricity alternatives. Larger commercial and industrial customers are usually those most sensitive to price. They are also customers who have the resources to seek alternative power suppliers in a deregulated retail market, and their industries appear to contain the largest, low-cost conservation potential. Utilities that are already increasing their focus on these customer classes for business reasons, can offer conservation services as part of an overall strategy. Moreover, because the retail rates for these customers are typically closer to short-run marginal costs, the lost-revenue impact of conservation investments in their facilities is less. Utilities implementing this strategy must address the possibility that these loads will not necessarily be the utility's customers in the long term.

6-B. A Renewable Energy Strategy

An objective of the Northwest Power Act is "to encourage the development of renewable energy resources within the Pacific Northwest." Renewable resource-based generating projects producing more than 420 average megawatts of energy have been developed since adoption of the 1991 Power Plan. This represents about 17 percent of all resources developed during this period. Encouraging progress has also been made on the renewable resource confirmation agenda set forth in the 1991 Power Plan. However, declining wholesale electric energy prices have resulted in near-cessation of additional generating resource development, and few new renewable projects are expected to be cost-effective in the near-term. This is consistent with the surplus of generating capacity on the Western electrical system, but raises the question of what type and level of renewables activity, if any, is desirable in this environment.

In developing this draft plan, the Council has assessed the value of the renewable resources available for development in the Northwest. This analysis considered load growth, hydropower and fossil fuel price uncertainties in an attempt to capture the resource diversity benefits of renewables. The analysis also considered the possibility of a carbon tax, should aggressive measures to reduce greenhouse gas production be needed. The values of several accelerated renewable resource development strategies, including sustained development, were also assessed and compared to developing renewables only as they become needed and cost-effective.

Based on its analysis, the Council has concluded that few renewable resources are cost-effective in the near-term. Unless carbon dioxide control measures increase the cost of other resources, the large inventory of undeveloped renewable resources available to the Northwest has little expected economic value if current forecasts of technology cost and performance, fuel price, water availability and load growth uncertainties hold. However, the potential value of renewable resources increases substantially if mitigation of carbon dioxide production is required to control global climate change.

A possible strategy of maintaining a set level of sustained renewables development was also analyzed. This analysis also suggests that there is little economic value in a strategy of sustained development of renewables. Projects developed in advance of cost-effectiveness would require a substantial cost premium, they would preclude the benefits of later technological development, and they are unlikely to produce significant economic benefit. This finding holds with consideration of fuel price, water availability and load growth uncertainties and with adoption of relatively high carbon taxes.

Nonetheless, because of the potential value of renewables in the event of control measures on carbon emissions, it is important to improve our understanding of the region's renewable resource potential and to ensure that the better resource areas remain available for development, if needed.

These findings suggest that a renewables strategy for the Northwest should focus on:

  • Ensuring that the restructured electric power industry provides equitable opportunities for the development of cost-effective renewable projects;
  • Ensuring that the renewable resource potential of the Northwest is adequately defined and that prime undeveloped renewable resources remain available for possible future development. This will require completion of key demonstration projects and resource assessment studies already under way;
  • Supporting research and development efforts to improve renewable technology;
  • Offering green power purchase opportunities; and
  • Monitoring fuel prices, the global climate change issue and other factors that might influence the value of renewable resources. More aggressive preparation for the development of renewables could be initiated if changes in these factors indicate that accelerated development of renewables is desirable.

Why People Support Renewables

The chief arguments that have been advanced by supporters of renewable resource development include:

Favorable environmental characteristics: Long-term and broadly dispersed environmental impacts, such as those linked to nuclear waste disposal, fossil-fuel extraction or atmospheric pollutants, are rare with renewable resources. In many cases, the environmental effects of renewable energy development are limited to the vicinity of the project and are relatively manageable.

Improved air quality and few greenhouse gas emissions: Wind, solar and hydropower resources have no atmospheric emissions and contribute no greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Geothermal plants release comparable or fewer atmospheric pollutants and much less carbon dioxide than fossil-fuel combustion. Biomass combustion releases more pollution than natural gas for generation of an equivalent amount of power. However, controlled burning of biomass residues for power generation is less polluting than the uncontrolled burning of these materials that might otherwise occur, and the carbon dioxide released by combustion of biomass will eventually recycle if sustainable forestry and agricultural practices are followed.

Energy cost stability: A diverse resource portfolio, including renewable resources, offers resiliency against fuel price, technology and environmental risks and uncertainties.

Local economic benefits: Renewables development can provide long-term employment, royalty and tax benefits to local communities that may not otherwise benefit from power system investments.

Regional self-sufficiency: Indigenous renewable resources reduce the need for energy imports and provide protection from fuel or transmission interruptions.

Development of products for export: An active domestic renewables industry can create products and services for overseas markets.

Non-power direct benefits: Some renewable energy projects, such as landfill gas energy recovery, offer important non-power benefits.

Promote a sustainable energy supply: A sustainable society is one in which humans can thrive without progressively degrading the natural environment and for which the living standards of future generations are not diminished by actions of the present. Renewable energy resources appear to constitute an important component of a sustainable energy supply.

Public support: Although the development of specific renewables projects may be locally controversial, renewables in general enjoy broad public support.

Renewables Activities - 1991 to the Present

About 700 to 800 megawatts of renewable resources, primarily hydropower and biomass cogeneration, were identified by the Council in the 1991 Power Plan as potentially cost-effective for development during the 10-year period following adoption of that plan. That plan called for development of these low-cost renewable resources. Since that plan was adopted, renewable projects providing more than 420 average megawatts of energy have been developed, and additional projects remain to be completed. Hydropower and projects using biomass residue fuels provide the bulk of this energy.

Recognizing that the cost of most renewables, though declining, was still higher than alternatives, the Council in its 1991 plan recommended a renewable resource confirmation agenda. The confirmation agenda is a set of coordinated research, development and demonstration activities intended to foster the efficient development of geothermal, solar and wind resources at sites in the Northwest. Confirmation activities include resource assessment, resolution of development constraints and renewable demonstration and pilot projects. These are described in Appendix K.

Many of the confirmation agenda actions have been initiated, though few have been completed. Most successful have been long-term wind and solar resource assessment, geothermal and wind pilot projects, and niche applications of solar photovoltaics. Less progress has been made on actions intended to secure improved resource information at specific sites, with the exception of environmental assessment at sites proposed for demonstration or pilot projects, and solar resource monitoring.

Prospects for Development of Renewable Energy Resources

As discussed in Chapter 5, technology improvements and production economies are expected to continue to reduce the cost of electricity from renewable resources. However, because of declining gas prices and continuing improvement in gas turbine technology, energy from most renewable resources is expected to be more expensive than new gas-fired combined-cycle power plants over the near term. Moreover, most renewables require large capital investments, which must be amortized over a lengthy operating period in order to secure competitive power costs. This is a disadvantage in the currently uncertain and changing utility industry where financial flexibility and minimal long-term capital investment are prized. The intermittent energy production of some renewables further reduces the value of their energy, and may increase the cost of delivering power from remote renewable resources because of the resulting low transmission capacity factor. Finally, though renewables (biomass excepted) are free of fuel price risk, they are susceptible to technology performance risk; the generating equipment must operate reliably over a long lifetime to recover the initial capital investment.

Given these economic handicaps, and absent major shifts in resource economics, such as would result from unexpectedly rapid increases in natural gas prices or adoption of carbon dioxide control measures, few renewable resources are likely to be cost-effective in the near term. Exceptions might include hydropower upgrades, upgraded chemical recovery cogeneration at pulp mills and projects developed primarily for non-power benefits (such as generation using landfill gas).

In the longer term, technology development is expected to improve the competitive position of some renewable resources. Costs should continue to decline for currently immature technologies, such as gasification of solid biofuels; technologies that stand to further benefit from economies of production, such as photovoltaics; and technologies that may benefit indirectly from research and development in other industries, such as geothermal exploration and drilling. The performance of fossil-fuel technologies is also expected to improve, but the effects of these improvements may be offset by escalating gas prices.

Value of Renewables Available for Development

Though few renewables are cost-effective in the near-term, having renewable resources available for development, in case they are needed, may have appreciable economic value. Considering only the uncertainties of water availability, load growth and fossil fuel prices, the expected value of renewables likely to become cost-effective over the 1996 to 2015 period is $28 million. This is compared to a present-value system cost of approximately $26 billion. The range of possible outcomes resulting from water availability, load growth and fossil fuel price uncertainty is not large.

The prospect of greenhouse gas control measures greatly increases the amount and value of cost-effective renewable resources. In this analysis, a carbon tax is used as a proxy for greenhouse gas controls. The tax rate range of $10 to $40 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted that is assumed for this analysis is consistent with fuel tax rates thought to be necessary to induce significant reductions in carbon dioxide production. This analysis assumes that a firm schedule for implementing a carbon tax is agreed to in 2000, and the tax is assessed beginning in 2005. This would provide time to initiate development of carbon dioxide offsets, conservation and renewable resources, and otherwise prepare for the tax. This approach is consistent with the phasing approach for pollutant reduction used in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.

The increase in the net-present value of the renewable resource inventory for the range of possible carbon tax levels is shown in Figure 6-6. As expected, carbon taxes result in more, and earlier, development of conservation and renewables. Electrical production cost savings occur by meeting new loads with resources that don't release carbon dioxide and by displacing the operation of existing projects that are sensitive to carbon taxation, such as coal-fired power plants. The expected net-present value of the renewables inventory increases to $86 million, $226 million and $997 million with carbon tax levels of $10, $25 and $40 per ton of carbon dioxide, respectively.

Figure 6-6. Net Present Value of Renewables Available for Development

Value of Accelerated Renewables Development

Because the societal benefits put forth by supporters of renewables development (see Box) are not necessarily incorporated in market-based resource decision-making, the level of renewables development that will be achieved purely on the basis of market prices may be less than the level that would occur if all societal values were considered. Some have argued that the gap between market-driven renewables development and this "societally optimal" level could be closed by establishing a target rate of renewable resource development. Market-driven levels of renewable resource development could be accelerated using resource portfolio standards or system benefit charges.

To assess the value of accelerated renewables development, three levels of developing renewable resources in advance of their need or cost-effectiveness were analyzed:

  • Development of 27 average megawatts of renewable energy in advance of need and cost-effectiveness over the period 1999 to 2004. For the analysis, one 30-megawatt geothermal project was assumed to be developed. This level of project development is representative of a modest extension to the current renewables pilot and demonstration program.
  • Development of 89 average megawatts of renewable energy in advance of need and cost-effectiveness over the period 1999 to 2004. For the analysis, two 30-megawatt geothermal projects and two 30-megawatt wind plants were assumed to be developed during the period. This level of project development is representative of an aggressive renewables pilot and demonstration program.
  • Development of approximately 30 average megawatts of renewable energy per year in advance of need and cost-effectiveness between 1999 to 2004 for a total of 129 average megawatts. For purposes of the analysis, a mix of biomass, geothermal, solar and wind resources was assumed to be developed, including (relatively) low-cost projects that are added to sites already having pilot projects and pilot development at new areas. This rate of development would be representative of moderate-level sustained renewables development.

As in the previous analysis, an attempt was made to incorporate the societal benefits of renewables that may not be reflected in the resource decisions of a competitive wholesale electricity market. In addition to the energy contribution, much of the diversity value of renewables was included by considering hydropower, load growth and fossil-fuel price uncertainty. Fuel carbon tax cases of $0, $10, $25 and $40 per ton of carbon dioxide, levied as described above, help set a value for the carbon-free characteristics of renewables. Accelerated development was assumed to shorten lead times for subsequent development of additional projects at sites that have significant resource potential and to accelerate geothermal cost reductions. [Because of the site-specific characteristics of geothermal resources, advanced development at Northwest sites could accelerate cost reduction for subsequent geothermal development beyond the rates illustrated in Figure 5-8. The levels of accelerated development considered in this analysis would be unlikely to stimulate reductions in biomass, wind and solar photovoltaics beyond the rates shown in Figure 5-8.] Projects were assumed to accumulate credit for carbon offsets between 2000 and 2005.

The analysis does not reflect possible costs or benefits of non-carbon environmental effects, economic development issues, non-power direct benefits or contribution to a long-term sustainable energy supply. These effects appear to be generally offsetting (e.g., the local environmental effects of renewables development versus the residual air-quality impacts of fossil-fuel development); subject to non-energy policy (e.g., economic self-sufficiency); or do not appear to be compromised by any of the courses of action considered (e.g., long-term energy sustainability).

Figure 6-7. Net Present Value of Accelerated Renewables Development

As illustrated in Figure 6-7, the expected net present values of the three levels of accelerated renewable development are negative except for the cases of high carbon taxes. The moderate and aggressive pilot and demonstration programs result in positive net present value for carbon taxes between $30 and $40 per ton, or greater. The net present value of the five-year sustained development program is negative across the full range of carbon taxes examined.

The generally negative expected values of accelerated renewables development result from: 1) the development and operating costs of the renewables are high compared to other alternatives during the period of accelerated renewables development; 2) early development of prime resource areas precludes later development of these sites using improved and less-costly technology; 3) the value of pilot projects in reducing the lead time for subsequent step-out development has been reduced by the availability of surplus power on the wholesale market and by the assumption that the coming of a carbon tax will be known several years in advance. Advance notice of a forthcoming carbon tax would provide time for aggressive efforts to prepare promising large renewable resource areas for development.

Figure 6-8. Impact of Accelerated Renewables Development on Revenue Requirements

The effect of accelerated renewables development on annual regional electricity revenue requirements was also assessed. (See Figure 6-8.) The results are roughly indicative of the impact on rates, assuming that the net costs are evenly spread on the basis of energy consumption. Costs of the current renewables confirmation activities are excluded.

By the fourth year (2003), the net cost of the five-year sustained development program peaks at 0.78 percent of regional revenue requirements ($71 million). In following years, net costs decline because of the combined effects of load growth (which increases regional revenue requirements) and the increasing cost of wholesale power and combined-cycle resources (because of fossil fuel price escalation and the cost of complying with increasingly stringent California nitrogen oxide control requirements). Over the 10-year period 1996 through 2005, net costs of the 2000 to 2004 sustained-development program average about $31 million annually.

The other two development strategies are less costly. By the fourth year (2003), the net cost of the five-year aggressive pilot and demonstration program peaks at 0.39 percent of regional revenue requirements (about $36 million). The modest pilot and demonstration program peaks at 0.21 percent of regional revenue requirements (about $21 million) in its first year. Over the 10-year period 1996 through 2005, the annual net costs of aggressive and modest pilot and demonstration programs average about $18 and $9 million, respectively.

Because the resource costs used to model accelerated development were representative of adding new projects to existing sites and not pilot project development, actual costs would likely be somewhat higher than shown here.

Findings Regarding a Near-Term Strategy

The analyses described above lead to the following findings regarding a near-term renewable resource strategy:

First, the inventory of undeveloped Northwest renewable resources has little quantifiable potential economic value unless carbon dioxide controls are eventually required. However, the expected value of these resources increases from $86 million to $1 billion across a range of possible carbon taxes (see Figure 6-6).

Second, the development of renewable resources in advance of need and cost-effectiveness has little quantifiable economic benefit except in high carbon-tax cases. This results from the relatively high cost of most renewable resources and the following:

  • The benefits of pilot projects in shortening the lead time for project development appear to be less valuable than in the past. The flexibility of the wholesale market, and the likelihood that greenhouse gas control measures, if adopted, would be phased in over a period of several years erode the benefits of shortened lead time.
  • Near-term development of renewable resources foregoes the benefit of expected longer-term technology improvements for the resources developed. This effect is significant for renewables because of the limited supply of prime resources, the capital intensity of most renewables development and the expectation of relatively rapid technology improvements.

Third, the net cost of sustained development of renewables in advance of need would quickly approach 1 percent of regional electricity revenue requirements. The annual cost of a sustained development program would then decline if further acquisitions were terminated, and decline more rapidly if a carbon tax were adopted. The net cost of renewable development rates in excess of about 30 average megawatts per year or continuing for more than about five years would exceed 1 percent of revenue requirements. A modest five-year renewables research and development program consisting of, for example, a 30-megawatt demonstration project and slight expansion of resource assessment projects would require less than 0.25 percent of regional revenue. These figures exclude the net costs of the renewable confirmation activities that are under way.

Finally, continued technology development will improve the position of renewables. But, geothermal excepted, it seems unlikely that renewable development efforts by the Northwest could contribute significantly to the advancement of renewable resource technologies or the viability of renewable resource companies. A robust global market and public support for basic research and development are probably necessary to ensure that technology development continues and that equipment vendors and developers remain in business. In the case of geothermal, development efforts at Northwest sites might accelerate the optimization of technologies for these applications.

Conclusions: Justifiable Elements of a Renewable Resource Strategy

The findings described above suggest that the actions described below might be justifiable elements of a near-term (5 to 10 year) renewable resource strategy.

Ensure that the restructured electric power industry provides equitable opportunities for development of cost-effective renewable projects: Open access transmission at comparable rates, for example, will provide equitable opportunities for remotely situated renewable projects to access markets. Better understanding of the cost of transmission and distribution to specific loads will reveal the system benefits that might be provided by projects including remote solar photovoltaic applications.

Ensure that the renewable resource potential of the Northwest is adequately defined and that prime undeveloped renewable resources remain available for possible future development. This will require completion of key demonstration projects and additional resource assessment activities already under way: Continuation and completion of the resource assessment and demonstration activities of the renewable resource confirmation agenda of the 1991 Power Plan will provide much needed information. These activities, fully described in Appendix K, include completion, operation and monitoring of geothermal projects at Newberry Volcano, in Oregon, and Glass Mountain, in Northern California, and commercial-scale wind demonstration projects. Also included are long-term wind and solar resource monitoring, and further characterization of prime wind and solar resource areas. These projects are revealing the feasibility, cost and environmental implications of developing the geothermal, solar and wind resources of the Northwest, thereby providing guidance for management and future development of the best resource sites.

Support research and development efforts to improve renewable resource technology: While renewable resources my not be cost-competitive today, they are likely to be needed in the long-term, and further research and development will bring their costs down. Unfortunately, with a weak near-term market for renewables, research and development may be limited. Consequently, the region should make a special effort to support these activities. One approach might be to continue support for research and development at the national level, for example, through the activities of the Electric Power Research Institute. Research and development support should also extend to demonstration of new technology applications for renewable resources of regional importance, such as improved hydropower efficiencies and distributed solar applications.

Offer green power purchase opportunities: "Green power" [The term "green power" is commonly used to describe a wholesale or retail power product consisting of power from renewable sources.] purchase opportunities are of value to consumers who believe that the benefits of renewable resources are not fully reflected in market-driven resource development decisions. Green power sales will also foster markets for renewable technologies and maintain renewables development capability. Project development serving green power sales should focus on cost-effective renewables, to the extent that these are available, and additional projects at existing sites with the potential of synergistically improving the economics of both existing pilot projects and the added projects.

Monitor fuel prices, the global climate change issue and other factors that might influence the value of renewable resources: Initiate more aggressive preparation for the development of renewables if changes in these factors indicate that accelerated development of renewables is desirable.

6-C. Environmental Considerations

The Power Act gave the Council responsibility to take environmental effects of electricity generation and use into account in its planning. As further guidance to the Council in administering its environmental responsibility, the Act included priorities to be used in choosing among resources that are equally cost-effective. These priorities generally favor environmentally benign resources. [The priorities are: first, conservation; second, renewable energy; third, high-efficiency resources; and fourth, conventional fossil generation.] The Act also specifies a 10-percent advantage for conservation in comparing the cost-effectiveness of conservation with that of other resources.

In past plans, the Council has taken a number of actions based on its consideration of environmental effects of the power system:

  1. In 1988, the Council specified 44,000 miles of stream reaches as protected areas. These reaches were judged to be unsuitable for siting of hydroelectric generating plants, because of the unavoidable effects on fish and wildlife habitat and migration.
  2. In the 1991 Power Plan, the Council set the cost-effectiveness cutoff for conservation (the upper limit on the cost of conservation measures judged cost-effective) higher than the avoided direct cost of new fossil-fueled generating plants. The extra margin was included by the Council to reflect the environmental advantages of conservation as a resource, compared to fossil-fueled generation.
  3. In the 1991 Power Plan, the Council also recommended that the region plan to build gasified coal generating plants if coal generation was chosen. Gasification technology was thought to be marginally higher in direct costs, but the Council judged that its environmental advantages, in addition to its potential for staged development, made it preferable to conventional pulverized-coal generating plants.

Environmental Mitigation in Competitive Electricity Markets

In a world of regulated utility monopolies, the mitigation of environmental effects of electricity production can be addressed by the utility itself. Of course, there are difficulties in measuring environmental effects and reaching agreement between utilities and regulators as to how best to mitigate them. When agreement is reached, however, extra direct costs resulting from environmental mitigation can be spread among customers by the monopoly utility. Nonetheless, even monopoly utilities face some level of competition because some customers can choose other energy forms or alternative locations, so the ability of a utility to pass on environmental mitigation costs is limited.

In a world with increasingly competitive electricity markets, the ability to pass on costs will be limited. A utility undertaking environmental mitigation that is not required of its competitors will incur costs its competitors do not incur. Beyond some point, this utility risks losing customers if it must require higher power rates.

It is difficult to predict the net effect of a more competitive electricity market on environmental quality. It is plausible to imagine competition leading to the substitution of more efficient and more environmentally benign natural gas generation for older fossil-fuel fired generation. In such cases, more competitive markets could improve environmental quality. In the near term, competition and low gas prices may result in older, less efficient, less environmentally benign plants being run. The balance between the use of newer versus older plants depends on relative production costs. To the extent that environmental effects are externalities [Economists define externality as a byproduct of an economic activity that is not borne by the parties involved in that activity. Environmental externalities are the environmental effects that we impose on others, which are not included in the direct cost of our actions to us.] to producers and users in competitive markets, there will be continued reason for concern about the level of attention utilities will pay to these effects.

In a competitive world, the desirable level of environmental mitigation will need to be the responsibility of all competitors. This might be accomplished by regulation of technologies, emission trading, pollutant taxing or other means. Whatever means are used, they will need to be applied equitably across competing energy producers, across competing energy forms and across regulatory jurisdictions.

This will tend to move policy decisions regarding environmental mitigation from the level of individual utilities and state and local regulators to the national or international level. A regional organization such as the Council is likely to find itself increasingly responding to environmental policies determined at the national or international level, instead of making environmental policy decisions itself. This draft plan focuses most of its environmental analysis on an issue that fits this description: global climate change.

Global Climate Change

The possibility that global climate change is occurring, driven by emissions of "greenhouse" gases [Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2 ), which is the most important,and methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2O), low-altitude ozone (O3 ) and chloroflourocarbons (CFCs).] and other human activity, has received increasing attention in recent years. The potential effects of such climate change include higher temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, changes in ocean currents, inundation of coastal land as the mean sea level rises, and increased intensity and frequency of storms. The potential for damage from these effects has led to intense scientific research and international discussions to understand what sort of response might be appropriate.

Measures to mitigate damage from climate change could include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by using different fuels for energy production, reducing transportation fuel use, increased efficiency of energy use, removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and direct responses to damage, such as building higher seawalls.

While the Council focuses primarily on the issue of possible global climate change in this draft plan, this focus is not because other environmental effects are not significant. This focus was chosen because:

Control efforts of other emissions have already made a difference: Many effects, such as emissions of sulfur dioxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulates, are already controlled to levels such that taking them into account does not change the preferred portfolio of new resources. In addition, market mechanisms, such as tradable emission rights or offset requirements, account for some of these effects (SO2 and in some areas NOx) as operating costs of existing resources. To the extent that resource operators are expected to cover the cost of their emissions with amounts that approximate the damage resulting from emissions, they will make operating decisions that take proper account of the environmental damage.

Many effects are project-specific: Many environmental effects are specific to unique qualities of resource design and location that can only be evaluated when specific projects are evaluated. The Council, in a long-term, regionwide plan, can generally describe these effects, but it cannot quantify impacts of actual projects. This evaluation is most appropriately done when specific projects are proposed. The Council recognized this in the 1991 Power Plan and committed to work with the state and local bodies responsible for establishing siting criteria that take into account localized environmental effects.

The Council's fish and wildlife program also addresses impacts of the power system: The hydroelectric system has had very significant impacts on fish and wildlife, particularly anadromous fish. The Council was given special direction to deal with these environmental effects through its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The Council's power planning analysis takes into account the effects on the power system of fish and wildlife recovery efforts, but leaves the determination of what these recovery efforts should be to the fish and wildlife program process.

Global climate change could significantly change the power system: The steps that might be taken to mitigate climate change have the potential to change significantly the region's choice of energy resources. The potential damage from climate change ranges from disruption of agriculture, natural vegetation and wildlife from changed temperatures and rainfall patterns, to inundation of islands and coastlines because of higher sea level, to damage from more-intense storms. Estimates of possible damage costs from global climate change cover a wide range, but values at the upper end of the range would justify changing our generation and use of electricity, as well as other uses of energy (e.g., transportation).

International Response to the Climate Change Issue

There is not yet agreement that the earth's climate is changing in response to human activities. Nonetheless, the international community has taken several steps to improve global understanding of the issue and to make it possible to take cooperative action if it is found to be necessary:

New York, 1988
In response to increasing interest in the issue of climate change, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel is made up of working groups of experts from many countries, and is managed by representatives of the member governments. Its task is to "provide internationally coordinated assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of climate change and realistic response strategies." The Panel issued an assessment of the state of the science in 1990, and again at the end of 1995.

Rio de Janeiro, 1992
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, resulted in the adoption and signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention took effect as an international treaty in 1994 after ratification by 54 countries. The Convention is intended to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the global climate. The treaty specified the Intergovernmental Panel as the Convention's scientific advisory body.

Berlin, 1995
The first "conference of the parties" of the treaty took place in Berlin in 1995. The conference resulted in the "Berlin Mandate," which calls for the developed countries to set quantified targets for control and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These targets are to be negotiated by 1997. No targets are being set for developing countries.

Washington, D.C.
The United States is participating in the Intergovernmental Panel and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States is formally committed to return its greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000, under the terms of the treaty. The United States has a National Climate Change Action Plan intended to achieve these emissions reductions, although it is widely believed the plan will fall short. The United States also, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, established a registry of greenhouse gas offsets. The registry is intended to make it possible for parties to take action now to reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions, and receive credit later if, for example, a carbon tax or compulsory reductions take effect.

Special Difficulties of the Climate Change Issue

The issue of global climate change has features that make it even more difficult to deal with than other environmental issues. First, while scientific consensus appears to be emerging that human activity is affecting the global climate, [See the "IPCC Second Assessment Synthese of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1995." There is still great uncertainty regarding the degree of climate change we face, its costs and the effects of efforts to mitigate such change. Scientists disagree about the mechanisms at work and the damage that may result.

Second, the global nature of the problem means climate change is an "externality" to our region, as well as to the individuals in the region. Whatever damage is caused by our region's greenhouse gas emissions is distributed globally; that is, it is experienced by people and ecosystems throughout the world. Likewise, any damage that our region suffers from global climate change is determined by greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world. This means that even if scientific uncertainty were eliminated, the region could not secure a stable climate by its own decisions and efforts. As is typical in situations with externalities, there would be inadequate incentive for each individual and each region to take actions that were in the global interest.

Because global climate change is an externality to each individual country, a response to climate change (if scientific consensus develops to justify a response) would be most effective if it were a cooperative international effort, with mutual commitments from most of the world's nations. Preliminary diplomatic negotiations are under way to make such cooperation possible if it turns out to be necessary.

Managing Risk to the Power System

Given the uncertainties surrounding the climate change issue, the inability of the region to control its climate by its own action and the difficulties implied by the ongoing transition to competitive electricity markets, the Council has approached the issue as a problem in managing risk to the power system. The region faces the risk that greenhouse gas emissions will have to be controlled and/or offset in the future. Such control would likely require policies such as a carbon tax or emission caps with tradable allowances. The risk to the region, then, is that fossil fuel burning may become more costly in a discrete step sometime in the future.

The size of this risk is determined by the magnitude and timing of this increase in cost, the probability that it will occur, and the cost of adjusting to the increase should it occur. The region cannot reduce the probability that global climate change will require future actions to control it – scientists will eventually come to a consensus, one way or another. The region may, however, be able to reduce the cost and disruption of a carbon tax, if global climate change turns out to warrant one. [Though control policies could take several forms, we use a carbon tax as a representative example. Other policies, such as tradable emissions under a cap, will have roughly equivalent effects on utilities' incentives at the margin.]

Measures to accomplish this reduction fall into two categories. First are measures that affect the production and use of electricity in the region, such as investments in increased efficiency or changes in generating fuel. The Council has reasonably good information about the first category. The cost of increased efficiency and the relative costs of generation by fossil, renewable and nuclear fuels in our region have been the subjects of Council analysis for every power plan.

Second are measures to offset emissions in this region by actions elsewhere; for example, investment in efficiency or fuel switching in the power system of a developing country, or the absorption of carbon by forestry practices in the United States or overseas. Measures in this "offset" category show promise of being some of the cheapest ways to respond to a need to control greenhouse gas emissions. These measures, unfortunately, are not nearly so well-studied as those in the first category.

In preparation for this plan, the Council commissioned an analysis of measures to offset carbon dioxide emissions. [Trexler and Associates, Inc., "Considerations in the Construction of a CO2 Mitigation Cost Curve for the Next Northwest Power Plan," August 1995.] While the offset potential appears promising, the quality of the data does not allow the development of a "supply curve" of offsets with much confidence. For example, incentives to invest in offsets to emissions depend on legal and institutional steps, such as the definition of new kinds of property rights. Such rights might be obtained by party A for reforestation work and sold to party B to satisfy party B's carbon tax obligations. The definition of these new property rights will need to deal with conceptual problems, such as assurance that a reforestation project is truly an increase in sequestered carbon, not merely a relocation of timber-cutting activity. Many of the measures that offer promise of inexpensive control of climate change (e.g., carbon sequestration in forests) are not completely inventoried. The size and cost of this inventory will depend in part on the definition of offset rights.

Analytical Approach

In the past, the Council has been able to estimate the costs and benefits of reducing other kinds of risk using its computer model, ISAAC (Integrated System Analysis of Acquisitions). [See Appendix H for a further description of ISAAC.] ISAAC would be the preferred tool for analyzing strategies to deal with the risk of a carbon tax as well. Unfortunately, the quality of available data means that we could have little confidence in the results.

The fundamental information necessary for an analysis using ISAAC is some sort of probability distribution of the outcomes (e.g., the level and timing of a carbon tax) that present risk to the region, and estimates of costs of the measures being considered to respond to the risk. While our understanding of global climate is improving, it does not yet support the estimation of a credible distribution of global climate change outcomes. The estimation of the cost of strategies to control emissions of greenhouse gases also faces serious difficulties.

Because of these problems, this draft plan does not treat the risk of global climate change with the kind of quantitative analysis applied to other issues. Instead, it provides illustrations of how much potential impact a control policy for greenhouse gases might have on:

  • The cost of the power system;
  • The value of conservation that is cost-effective on the basis of energy savings alone, but at some risk of not being acquired; and
  • The net cost of maintaining some acquisition of renewables.

For purposes of illustration, carbon tax levels of $10, $25 and $40 (in January 1995 dollars) per ton of carbon dioxide were used. These values are illustrative of the range of values commonly cited. [See Table 1 of "Accounting for Environmental Externalities in the Power Plan," Northwest Power Planning Council Issue Paper 94-50, October 1994.]

Power System Cost Analysis

To illustrate the potential impact of a carbon tax on the overall cost of the region's power system, the Council estimates that supplying the region's electricity in 1996 will result in the emission of 11.6 million tons of carbon dioxide. If a tax of $10-per ton of carbon dioxide were in force and no changes were made to the operation of the power system, the region's total carbon tax payment would be $116 million, a 1.7 percent increase in the total regional bill for electricity. Under the same assumptions, a $40-per ton tax would cost four times as much.

The region appears likely to rely increasingly on fossil-fueled generation in the future, making it potentially more vulnerable to a carbon tax. If current acquisition patterns hold, the Council's forecasts project an expected level of carbon dioxide emissions of 27.3 million tons in 2005. If a tax of $10 per ton of carbon dioxide were imposed in that year, in the absence of adjustments to the operation of the power system, the tax payment would be $273 million, or a 3.7 percent increase in the expected regional electricity bill. A tax of $40 per ton would impose a proportionately larger tax bill and a proportionately larger increase in the total electricity bill, $1.1 billion and 14.7 percent, respectively.

Of course, even in the short run, changes in the operation of the power system to reduce this impact are possible. Generating units that are heavily affected by a carbon tax (such as coal-fired or high heat-rate gas-fired units) would be used less, and other units that are less affected by the tax (such as nuclear, renewable and high-efficiency gas-fired units) would be used more. Purchases from outside the region, to the extent their prices were affected by a carbon tax, could also be adjusted. The Council estimates that such short-run changes in the operation of the power system existing in 2005 could reduce the net impact of a $10 per ton tax to $245 million, and the net impact of a $40 per ton tax to $849 million (in 1995 dollars). In the longer run, as new generating units are added to the system, there is more scope for adjustment to the tax.

Effect of a Carbon Tax on Resource Choice

The imposition of a carbon tax could affect new resource acquisition choices. Table 6-3 shows estimates of the impact of a tax on the cost of various generating alternatives. These generating alternative costs are estimated assuming acquisition in the year 2000, and assuming medium forecast prices for natural gas. The generation making up our region's purchases from the West Coast market is represented by "SW Market - Gas Boilers" and "SW Market - Coal" and assumes purchases based on winter prices for these resources. A comparison of these impacts shows that coal plants are affected most heavily by a carbon tax, gas plants are less affected, and conservation and generation fueled by renewable or nuclear fuels are not affected at all. For example, a $10-per ton tax increases the cost of power from coal-fired plants in the Southwest ("SW Market - Coal") by 1.0 cent per kilowatt-hour, from 2.5 cents to 3.5 cents. The same tax increases the cost of power from a new gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbine in the Northwest ("New PNW Natural Gas CC") by only 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, from 3.1 to 3.6 cents.

Table 6-3. Comparative Impact of Carbon Tax on Power Costs

Resource Fuel Carbon & CO2 Releases Cost of Power (cents/kWh)
  Taxable Fuel Carbon (lb/MMBtu) Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) Power Plant CO2 Releases (lbCO2/kWh) Base $10/ton CO2 Tax $20/ton CO2 Tax $30/ton CO2 Tax $40/ton CO2 Tax
Conservation (average) 0.0 0 0.00 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
SW Market - Gas Boilers 31.4 9,260 1.07 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.1 4.6
SW Market - Coal 55.1 9,560 1.93 2.5 3.5 4.4 5.4 6.4
Pulp Liquor Cogeneration 0.0 16,500 0.00 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Landfill Gas Recovery 0.0 11,000 0.00 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Clean MSW Combustibles 0.0 14,400 0.00 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Forest Thinning Bioenergy 0.0 14,400 0.00 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3
New PNW Natural Gas CC 31.4 7,215 0.83 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8
Wind (First block) 0.0 0 0.00 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
New PNW Coal (PRB) 55.1 8,970 1.81 4.0 4.9 5.8 6.7 7.7
New Hydropower (Average) 0.0 0 0.00 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
New LWR 0.0 0 0.00 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9
Ind. Gas Cogen (LM-5000) 31.4 8,000 0.92 3.7 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.5
Geothermal (First block) 0.0 0 0.00 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Total Solar Thermal 0.0 0 0.00 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Solar Photovoltaics 0.0 0 0.00 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8

Table 6-3 shows that the conservation resource and pulp liquor cogeneration are the least expensive resources even without a carbon tax. These resources become more attractive if a carbon tax is imposed, becoming more attractive yet as the tax level increases. The size of the conservation resource would increase with higher tax levels; marginal measures become cost-effective as the avoided cost of power generation increases.

Currently, two of the most common resource choices by the region's utilities are purchases from existing resources from outside the region and new gas-fired combined-cycle turbines. it's useful to examine the impacts of a carbon tax on the attractiveness of each of these alternatives in turn.

Table 6-3 shows that a tax of $10 per ton of carbon dioxide makes building new gas-fired combined-cycle turbines (at 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour) competitive with the cost of power purchases (at 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour based on operating costs only) from coal-fired plants in the Southwest. With higher taxes, coal-fired plants are more heavily penalized, and they become less competitive. The cost of power from conservation and renewable resources is not affected by a carbon tax, so these resources become more attractive relative to fossil-fueled plants at higher levels of carbon tax. As the carbon tax increases, landfill gas recovery, municipal solid waste combustibles, wind and hydropower all become competitive with purchased power from coal and natural gas generation in the Southwest.

Some renewables also become competitive with new gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbines at higher levels of carbon tax. The high efficiency of the new turbines means higher taxes are necessary before the renewables are the cheaper resources. Landfill gas and new hydropower plants are competitive with new combined-cycle gas turbines at tax levels of $10 per ton or less, while municipal solid waste and wind require taxes above $20 per ton to be competitive.

These results suggest that carbon taxes could lead to adjustments in the resource mix across the range of taxes considered here. At low levels of tax, we might see substitution of a lower-carbon fossil fuel, natural gas for coal for example, while at higher tax levels renewable generation could be substituted for fossil fuel-fired generation.

Value of Conservation

The value of conservation was estimated by assuming the imposition of a $10-per ton tax in 2005 and simulating the development of the power system with and without the conservation resource identified earlier in this chapter. The value of this conservation is the difference between the two cases in the expected present value of the cost of providing electricity to the region. Without the carbon tax, the estimated value of the conservation is $2.3 billion. With the assumed carbon tax, the value of conservation increases to $3.2 billion, $4.6 billion and $6.1 billion for the three levels of tax, respectively. This increased value includes the value of extra conservation measures that become cost-effective as the tax raises the avoided cost of power.

Non-Power System Responses

Changing generating resources and acquiring conservation are responses to a carbon tax that we might expect, and that we understand reasonably well – measures affecting the production and use of electricity in our region. It is very likely that a number of other measures would be part of any sensible policy for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. These other measures would include reduction of emissions in other sectors of our economy (for example, transportation) or in other economies (for example, in developing countries), and they would include absorption of greenhouse gases (for example, in reforestation). It is very likely that some of the measures not analyzed here would turn out to be some of the most cost-effective in controlling global climate change.

Regional Actions While Climate Change is Uncertain

The foregoing discussion has described some of the responses we could expect from the imposition of a carbon tax if it occurs, but offers no strategy to pursue while the imposition of a tax is uncertain. As explained earlier in this chapter, the information is not available to evaluate such strategies quantitatively, using the tools the Council has used in similar situations in the past. We can, however, make some qualitative recommendations:

Avoid investments in vulnerable resources: Investments in resources that emit greenhouse gases are at risk of becoming stranded investments if a carbon tax is imposed. In the evaluation of alternatives that are "close calls" based on costs and other resource characteristics, taking account of the risk of a carbon tax tips the balance toward low-fixed-cost, short-term commitment alternatives, such as operating existing resources or purchasing from spot or short-term markets.

In most cases, operating existing resources does not increase a utility's exposure to the risk of a carbon tax. Most operating decisions commit the utility for a short time only (a year or less). The utility faces little risk that something as significant as a carbon tax will be imposed before the utility can reconsider its operating decision. The risk-avoiding advantages of existing resources hold whether the existing resource is owned and operated in the region, or the output of an existing out-of-region resource is being purchased.

When investment is unavoidable, recognize risk: Exposure to the risk of a carbon tax should be recognized when new investments are considered. New investments include the acquisition of new resources, of course, but they also include investments in existing resources. Examples of the latter are the replacement of the steam generator at a nuclear plant, installation of emission-control equipment at a coal-fired generating plant, or life-extension of a high heat-rate gas-fired plant. If investments are made in new or existing plants that are vulnerable to a carbon tax, and if a carbon tax were imposed before the investments are recovered, they could become "stranded." Many factors influence such investment decisions, and other factors might outweigh the risk of a carbon tax in the final decision, but the risk should be recognized, and taken into account.

In contrast, with decisions that commit utilities to the continued operation of a resource that is not vulnerable to a carbon tax, such as WNP-2 or a renewable energy resource, recognition of the risk of carbon tax would weigh in favor of continued operation. In these cases, too, other factors will be weighed and may outweigh carbon tax risk in the final decision, but carbon tax risk should be recognized.

Secure cost-effective conservation: Cost-effective conservation measures reduce the region's exposure to the risk of a carbon tax with "no regrets." That is, these measures are worth taking based on the direct costs alone, their risk-reducing benefits come without imposing any extra cost. Some conservation resources may be at risk because of market imperfections or gaps in the new utility industry structure. The risk of a carbon tax only increases the incentive to make sure the region takes advantage of all its opportunities for cost-effective conservation.

Gain experience in offsets: While the uncertainty about global climate change's impact on power system economics persists, utilities, regulators and others can monitor scientific developments, both in the area of extent and damage of warming and in the area of the economics and law of mitigation activities.

Utilities can also carry out pilot-scale efforts to get experience in the practical problems of acquiring offsets. Utilities in our region, most notably PacifiCorp, are pursuing this strategy with a variety of projects ranging from reforestation on private land in our region, to preservation of forests in Central America. The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council is encouraging independent power producers to gain the same sort of experience as part of their license agreements. Such projects prepare the region to move quickly to larger-scale offset acquisitions if needed. The projects can be entered in a registry created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (see Box above) and may qualify for credits against a carbon tax or equivalent policy if one is adopted.

Some offset projects, for example, reforestation, result in a combination of carbon sequestration and production of other products that have value, for example, lumber. The net cost of the offset is the total cost of the project less the value of the non-offset products. The value of the offsets themselves, however, is speculative while national and international policy on climate change is uncertain. Because it is not certain the offsets are worth anything, however, they may be available at low cost. If a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) is imposed, the value of acquired offsets would equal the tax avoided due to the offsets. If a tax is not imposed, the offsets would have no value.

Acquiring offsets after a tax is imposed would be less risky, but more expensive. The owners of potential offsets will attempt to extract as much value as possible. Unless there are enough offsets to avoid any tax payments at all, the net cost of offsets should rise to approach the level of the tax.

^ top

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

This chapter describes the Council's forecasted range of electricity growth and its forecast of natural gas prices. These forecasts help indicate the potential level of increases in electricity use the region might experience. This lays the foundation for looking at what potential resource options are available to fill those growing needs.

This chapter also describes the outlook for the West Coast power market and assesses the amount and cost of electricity available from this market over the long run. As the current surplus in this market is depleted, construction of new generating capacity may resume. Brief descriptions of the estimated cost and quantity of generating resource alternatives that are available for development in the Northwest if new capacity is needed are also included in this chapter. This chapter ends with a description of the uncertainties and future capability of the hydroelectric system and their implications.

5-A. Growing Demand for Electricity

In the midst of all of the changes in the electric power industry, the region's economy continues to grow, and businesses and consumers continue to rely on electricity and other forms of energy as an important component of their activities. It is this growth in economic activity and its changing composition that is the primary determinant of the region's increasing demand for electricity, although that increasing demand is also affected by changing prices for electricity and other fuels.

Economic Patterns

The economic outlook for the Pacific Northwest continues to be strong, although there is always significant uncertainty about the amount of economic growth the region will experience. Recent economic growth in the region has continued to outstrip the nation as it has on average for the last 30 years or more.

Two major categories of business activity are typically distinguished in analyzing regional economic growth. Manufacturing industries are engaged in the transformation of substances or materials into new products. Electricity consumed in these activities is assigned to the industrial electricity demand sector. The second major category of business economic activity, non-manufacturing, includes activities such as services, construction, wholesale and retail trade, mining, agriculture and government. Electricity consumed in these activities is assigned to the commercial demand sector. The electricity used by individual consumers makes up the residential demand sector.

In the past, the region's manufacturing sector has been dominated by natural resource-dependent activities. Lumber, paper and food products accounted for half of the region's manufacturing employment in 1970. Although these industries are still significant, their relative importance is declining. Currently, the largest manufacturing industry in the Northwest is electronics, which is composed of machinery, electrical equipment and professional instruments. The second largest manufacturing industry is transportation equipment, primarily The Boeing Company in Washington. Transportation surpassed lumber and wood products as the largest manufacturing sector in 1989. The historically dominant lumber and wood products industry now makes up the third largest manufacturing industry.

Although receiving far less media attention, the non-manufacturing sector dominates regional employment. These activities account for 85 percent of regional jobs, having grown from an 80-percent share 25 years ago. The largest non-manufacturing sectors are services, retail trade and government. Recent growth has been fastest in business services, health services, engineering services, legal services and restaurants.

The most likely range of economic forecasts shows that the region could add between 1.2 and 2.5 million employees by the year 2015, with 1.7 million added in the medium case. Nearly all of this additional employment occurs in non-manufacturing industries. By 2015, the non-manufacturing share of total regional employment could grow to nearly 89 percent.

Electricity Demand Forecast

The composition of economic growth is an important determinant of the growth in electricity demand because different sectors have significantly different energy requirements. On average, the region's businesses required about 22 megawatt-hours of electricity per employee in 1994. However, the manufacturing sector requires about nine times as much electricity per employee as the commercial, or non-manufacturing, sector. Therefore, the more rapid growth of the non-manufacturing sector tends to gradually reduce the electricity intensity of the region's economy.

Even within the manufacturing sector, there are dramatic differences in the electricity intensities of various subsectors. Four of the 20 subsectors in manufacturing account for about 80 percent of the electricity use. These four are metals, paper, lumber and chemicals. The same four industries, however, account for only 27 percent of the manufacturing sector employment. These large electricity users are generally among the slowest growing industries in the economic forecast, and this tends to further reduce the electricity intensity of the regional economy.

However, there is a new electricity-intensive sector projected to show very rapid growth over the next several years. This is a portion of the electronics industry engaged in the manufacture of silicon wafers, computer chips and microprocessors. The large number of these plants that are expected to come on line over the next several years has the potential of adding about 250 average megawatts of industrial electricity demand.

Personal consumption of electricity occurs in the residential sector. The amount of electricity used per household in the Northwest has been gradually trending downward since 1980 in response to several factors. These include a large electricity price increase around 1980, regional conservation programs and declining natural gas and oil prices starting in the mid-1980s. The medium forecast shows a continued downward trend in residential electricity intensity.

The medium forecast of electricity demand shows that the region could add about 5,920 average megawatts of firm demand between 1994 and 2015. This amounts to an additional 282 average megawatts per year and an average annual growth rate of 1.3 percent.

The demand for electricity is, however, inherently uncertain. For this reason, the Council produces a range of demand forecasts. With resources that are less capital intensive and have shorter lead times, and the emergence of a West Coast surplus power market, the risks associated with demand uncertainty are less than in the past. Nonetheless, it is still worthwhile to consider the implications of demand uncertainty.

The current electricity demand forecast projects growth rates to be between 0.7 percent and 1.9 percent per year, with equal and relatively high probability. This amounts to a difference of approximately 7,000 average megawatts over the 20-year planning horizon. It is possible, although much less likely, for growth, in the low and high cases, to be as little as negative 0.2 percent or as much as 2.7 percent per year, respectively. This is a difference of more than 14,000 average megawatts over the 20-year planning horizon. Figure 5-1 illustrates the forecast range in a long-term historical context.

Figure 5-1. Demand Forecast Range in a Long-Term Historical Context

The composition of the forecasted use of electricity changes very little between 1994 and 2015. Residential and irrigation shares decrease by 1 percent each with the industrial sector gaining the 2 percentage points. Within the industrial sector, there is a shift away from Bonneville's direct service industries and toward other industrial customers.

The demand forecasts reflect an expectation that the region will experience generally stable electricity prices that will probably decline slightly in real terms in the medium and lower demand forecasts. This is illustrated for the residential sector in Figure 5-2. These are average rates per kilowatt-hour, including all fixed and variable costs.

Figure 5-2. Forecast of Average Residential Rates

Electricity prices are forecast simultaneously with electricity demand. In past forecasts, electricity price growth was very sensitive to the rate of growth in electricity demand. This is no longer the case for two reasons. First, the cost of new electricity generating capacity is no longer substantially greater than the cost of the existing regional power resources. This is primarily due to the lower forecasts of natural gas prices and the technological advancement in combined-cycle combustion turbines. Second, there is substantial opportunity to improve the use of electricity generating capacity throughout the West Coast power system. The opening up of the wholesale power market will facilitate that improvement. As a result, fewer new resources will be required, and those that are required will be less costly than in the past. The average regional electricity price forecasts are shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Average Regional Real Retail Electricity Price Forecasts
(1995 Cents Per Kilowatt-hour)

Forecast Case 1994 2005 2015 Growth Rate

1994-2015
Low 4.2 3.92 3.76 -0.5 %
Medium Low 4.2 3.87 3.80 -0.5 %
Medium 4.2 3.89 3.91 -0.3 %
Medium High 4.2 4.05 4.19 0.0 %
High 4.2 4.30 4.65 0.5 %

5-B. Natural Gas Price Forecasts

Natural gas prices have two significant impacts on electricity consumption. First, natural gas prices relative to electricity prices help determine which fuel consumers will select for key pieces of energy consuming equipment, such as space and water heaters. Second, the price of natural gas significantly determines the cost of gas-fired combustion turbines, which in turn is a key resource for new electricity generation. As a result, natural gas prices influence both the amount of electricity consumed and the cost of supplying new resources.

As described later in this chapter, the restructuring of the natural gas industry has resulted in a vibrant market, producing dramatic decreases in natural gas prices and a growing estimate of natural gas supply. Ranges of natural gas and other fossil fuel price assumptions have been declining and becoming narrower since the Council developed its 1991 Power Plan.

Based on several national gas price forecasts and advice from the Natural Gas Advisory Committee, the medium-case forecast assumes that average real U.S. gas prices will grow at about 1.0 percent annually, increasing from the 1994 level of $1.84 to $2.25 by 2015. The lower cases recognize that real prices may remain flat or even decline slowly over time, and the higher cases explore the possibility that we have become too optimistic about the natural gas future as a result of recent patterns. However, even in the high forecast, gas prices reach only $3.37 compared to a high case of $6.00 contained in the Council's forecast of natural gas prices in October 1992. Figure 5-3 illustrates the historical average U.S. wellhead price and the Council's forecast.

Figure 5-3. Average U.S. Wellhead Natural Gas Prices: Historic and Forecast Range

While national trends in natural gas prices are usually indicative of regional trends, they are not a good indication of actual gas prices in this region. The Pacific Northwest gets most of its gas supplies from Canada and the U.S. Rocky Mountains. These are the two lowest-cost natural gas producing regions in North America. As a result, prices of natural gas delivered into the pipelines serving the Pacific Northwest are substantially lower than prices in most of the country. For example, on October 2, 1995, gas delivered into the U.S. Pacific Northwest from Canada was about $.90 per million Btu, and gas delivered into the pipeline serving the Pacific Northwest from the U.S. Rocky Mountains was $1.04 per million Btu. At the same time, at the Henry Hub in Louisiana, the pricing point for NYMEX gas futures contracts, gas was $1.65 per million Btu. The Northwest's pricing advantage fluctuates with market conditions, but a $.50 advantage is fairly typical.

The low price for Canadian natural gas, which is primarily produced in Alberta and British Columbia, results from the large relatively less-developed gas resources, limited pipeline capacity to move gas out of Canada, and long distances to major gas markets outside the Northwest. These conditions are expected to continue to benefit the Pacific Northwest with relatively low gas prices for the forecast period, although the advantage relative to national prices is expected to decline to some degree in most forecast cases.

The prices of natural gas to final users depends on the cost of transporting and distributing the gas to the point of use. For smaller customers, these costs are a larger share of the delivered cost of natural gas. Because pipeline and distribution costs are not expected to escalate rapidly in real terms, the growth rates of prices to residential and commercial customers are moderated. The medium forecast used for this draft plan is summarized in Table 5-2. The complete range of forecasts may be found in Appendix C.

Table 5-2. Medium Case Forecast of Natural Gas Prices Delivered to End Users
(January 1995 Dollars per Million Btu)

Case and Sector 1994 2005 2010 Growth Rate

1994-2015
Residential 5.21 5.28 5.62 0.4 %
Commercial 4.43 4.49 4.83 0.4 %
Industrial 2.30 2.57 2.88 1.1 %
Electric Generation 1.82 (est.) 2.14 2.52 1.6 %

5-C. The Western Power Market

The electricity forecasts indicate that loads could grow by about 5,920 average megawatts by the year 2015, if medium economic growth occurs. There are a number of resources that could be used to meet this load growth, including the West Coast power market, which currently has an abundance of low-cost resources.

The Northwest has traditionally thought of itself as an island of cheap electricity with links to the rest of the West. These Western connections can be used to increase reliability; to dispose of surplus nonfirm hydropower (which was the primary purpose for constructing the Intertie lines between the Northwest and Southwest); and to make exchanges that do not involve net sales of firm energy (e.g., transactions where the Northwest supplies peak capacity and the buyer returns the energy in its off-peak hours or season). Such exchanges were exempted from restrictions under the Northwest Preference Act, which was passed with the initial construction of the Intertie, because they were consistent with the concept of an island of cheap electricity. The closest these ideas came to being challenged were calls for increased reliance on gas-fired combustion turbines or purchases from California gas generation, which could be extensively displaced by nonfirm energy to meet firm Northwest loads. Until very recently, these notions were basically intact.

Several things have dramatically changed this perspective in the last few years. The first is the general assumption that the fall in gas prices in the mid-1980s, described earlier in this chapter, was not an anomaly. The second is the still-unfolding consequence of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), which allowed theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to require open access to the nation's transmission systems and legitimized major non-utility power suppliers, marketers and brokers as players in the nation's power markets. These factors are driving the industry toward a wide-open wholesale power market.

The Western Generation and Transmission System

To estimate how much electricity could be brought into the Northwest from Southern and Southwest markets, the Council analyzed how much transmission was available. To exclude indigenous Northwest resources, the analysis left out the Northwest Power Pool Area of the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC), leaving in only California, the Inland Southwest and the southern Rocky Mountain area. (See map.) This area's generating resources, as of January 1995, are shown in Figure 5-4. Figure 5-5 shows the forecast load and resource balances for the next nine years. Data for both figures are from the WSCC's 1995 planning documents.

Figure 5-4. 1995 WSCC Winter Generating Capability
(Excluding Northwest Power Pool Area)

Figure 5-5. WSCC Surplus Above Required Reserves
(Excluding Northwest Power Pool Area)

There are three major points to be drawn from these figures. The first is that there is a substantial amount of gas-fired steam generation in this area, when gas prices are low. The second is that there is a surplus during the summer, which is the WSCC's peak period, that extends past the year 2000, although there are important qualifications about the plants that make up the surplus and their marketability. Third, and most importantly, the surplus during the winter, which is the Northwest's peak period, is larger and is likely to extend indefinitely until it is either contracted away to the Northwest or is limited by, for example, air quality concerns at the generation sites.

Transmission Constraints

The Northwest is currently connected to California and the Inland Southwest by two major interties, the AC Intertie to Northern, and to a lesser extent, Southern California, and the DC Intertie directly to Southern California. Southern California is in turn connected to the Inland Southwest, the site of large portions of its own generation, by major 500-kilovolt lines. The ability to import from the Southwest and Southern California to Northern California on the AC Intertie can be limited to as little as 1,300 megawatts under some load and generation patterns. The AC Intertie capability from Northern California into the Northwest is capable of delivering approximately 3,700 megawatts. However there is typically far less electricity available in Northern California, except during good runoff conditions in the spring. At that time, the California hydropower competes with Northwest hydropower on the market.

The DC Intertie can generally be loaded to its full rating, approximately 2,900 megawatts south-to-north, without impinging on reliability criteria based on the stability of the transmission system. However, heavy and long-term reliance on imports on the DC Intertie, which is a single line in a single right of way, to meet loads could incur the risk of not having an alternative contractual pathway in the event of an outage on the line. In recent years, prolonged outages have occurred because of a fire and an earthquake in Southern California.

An additional high voltage line, the Southwest Intertie Project, connecting the Southwest with the Northwest, is in the advanced subscription stage. This line would likely mitigate some of these concerns. Nonetheless even with the completion of a project like the Southwest Intertie, transmission capacity, not prices or generating availability, will be the major constraint on the ability of the Northwest to meet its load growth through purchases from the West Coast market.

West Coast Resource Availability and Price

After accounting for general reliability needs and potential transmission constraints, it would be reasonable for the Northwest to rely on imports of up to 3,500 to 4,500 megawatts in most months, depending on the desired reliability of delivery. This is consistent with the Northwest Power Pool's analysis of the Northwest's reliability for winter 1995/1996, which concluded that up to 4,500 megawatts of imported power on the AC and DC Interties could be safely relied on in the event of extreme winter weather. This is higher than the 3,500 megawatts used in the analysis for winter 1994/1995 because hydropower conditions improved in 1995/1996 in Northern California. For the long-term analysis conducted in this plan, it was assumed that imports would be constrained to 5,000 megawatts in any given month.

The Council's analysis further indicates that prices that might be offered for Northwest imports will be heavily dependent on natural gas prices, which are expected to remain at low levels. Based on the Council's medium natural gas price forecast, electricity delivered to the Northwest borders should generally remain in the low 20-mill range, with increases for on-peak prices likely in the early 2000s. On-peak refers to the daily, and particularly, the seasonal peak periods.

Summer peak-daytime prices could become quite high as Western generating surpluses are worked off and added air-quality constraints are imposed in Southern California air basins, thus reducing the output of gas-fired generating units in the air basin. High prices in summer on-peak periods would provide a market for Northwest nonfirm energy and that would bring in additional capital investment to meet peak loads. However, off-peak prices, particularly in off-peak months, when the Northwest would be most interested in purchasing power, are likely to remain moderate (in the low 20-mill range in 1995 dollars) well into the next decade, given gas prices that track the medium forecast. The analysis, including significant uncertainties and limitations, is described in more detail in Appendix E.

Figure 5-6. Change in System Costs of Power is Purchased from West Coast Market
(Negative values are savings to the system.)

Estimated Level of Reliance on the West Coast Market

If the California and Inland Southwest wholesale power market can be used to maintain reliability and deliver electricity to the Northwest at a price lower than that of new generation, it is likely that the Northwest will develop some level of reliance on wholesale power purchases from the Western power market. [Reliance on the spot market for significant amounts of energy will represent a move away from the traditional critical water planning criterion historically used in the Pacific Northwest power system. Critical water planning is a system planning criterion that sets targets for construction of new generation resources such that demand could be met under the worst historical drought conditions.] This is particularly likely given the estimated price and depth of the out-of-region bulk power market and the strong Northwest interconnections to this market. As a result, these markets significantly affect future resource avoided costs and the value associated with continued implementation of conservation and renewable resources.

Before assessing the cost-effectiveness of developing additional conservation and renewable resources, the Council needed to account for the large amount of inexpensive electricity that could be purchased from the West Coast market. To this end, the Council compared meeting load growth with the construction of new gas-fired combined-cycle power plants in the region to meeting load growth with increasing levels of out-of-region purchases on the market. The results of these studies are summarized in Figure 5-6.

This chart shows the change in future power system costs (expressed as present value dollars) as a function of the level of reliance on out-of-region markets. The market level of zero means that all new resources are in-region combined-cycle gas plants.

The present value of future power system costs for this approach is about $30 billion. As market reliance increases, combined-cycle plant development is displaced by an equivalent amount of purchases. In this study, the expected present-value cost to the region is minimized if the region uses the West Coast market to meet about 3,000 average megawatts of demand growth. The expected cost reduction to the region is about $3.2 billion compared to constructing combined-cycle gas power plants. The mean annual cost savings approach $250 million per year.

The 3,000-average megawatt reliance does not imply a flat 3,000-megawatt purchase year round. In any given month, purchases could be as high as 5,000 megawatts, depending on the long-term transmission capacity constraints described above. Yearly purchase levels will be strongly influenced by demand patterns, available hydropower generation and natural gas prices.

Purchases will generally be greater in the fall and winter and will fall off sharply in the spring and summer, as reservoir storage is used to meet salmon flow targets, and more hydropower is available to meet in-region loads. One of the largest benefits of the spot purchase strategy comes from its ability to adapt to changing hydropower generation patterns. Spot purchases can be used heavily when there are constraints on hydropower generation, but they can be backed off in good hydropower conditions, without incurring the fixed costs of new construction. Thus, spot purchases become another form of the hydropower-firming strategy recommended by the Council in the 1991 Power Plan.

The expected values on the curve in Figure 5-6 represent mean values over 100 future scenarios for the power system. There is significant uncertainty around these points because the future is unknown. The 100 scenarios include a range of low to high load growth, low to high natural gas prices, and uncertainty in the amount of Northwest hydropower generation.

At the 3,000-average megawatt purchase level, the average savings relative to building power plants in the Northwest amount to $3.2 billion. However, in a case with low demand growth, where there is not much need for new construction, the relative savings would be much less. Continually poor hydropower conditions would also produce lower benefits, because it would allow less displacement of purchases and realize less of the flexibility benefit described above. Conversely, higher levels of demand growth, or continually favorable hydropower conditions would produce larger benefits.

Given the uncertainties incorporated in this analysis, the distribution of potential benefits at the 3,000-average megawatt reliance level ranges from $250 million to more than $5 billion. This is illustrated in Figure 5-7. More than 70 percent of the observations fall within the range from $2.4 billion to $3.6 billion. While the range is very large, at this level of market reliance there are no cases where the market purchase strategy doesn't produce some economic benefit relative to the full combined-cycle power plant strategy. Even over a wide range of potential futures, relying on purchases from the West Coast market produces savings.

The results of this analysis should not be construed as a recommendation by the Council that the region immediately abandon its historic critical water planning criteria and move to complete reliance on out-of-region markets to meet demand growth for the next several years. The Council will have little influence over this process. Decisions to meet load growth through short-term transactions will be made incrementally by individual utilities, based on the economics and reliability of proposed transactions. However, the potential economic benefits to the Northwest appear to be large, and it is the Council's judgment that reliance on the market needs to be incorporated into the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of conservation and renewable resources. To that end, a long-term market reliance level of 3,000 megawatts was incorporated into the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of conservation and renewable resources. For conservation or renewable resources to be found cost-effective, their costs to the region had to be lower than reliance on purchases from the market.

Figure 5-7. Distribution of Benefits from Reliance on the West Coast Market
(3,000-Megawatt Level)

5-D. New Generating Resource Potential

A supply curve showing the estimated cost and quantity of new resource alternatives available for development in the Northwest is illustrated in Figure 5-8. Table 5-3 contains the corresponding data. Capsule descriptions of the generation supply alternatives follow. Further information regarding conservation potential is provided in Chapter 6 and in Appendix G. Additional information regarding generating resource potential is provided in Appendix F.

Coal: A practically unlimited supply of low-cost, low-sulfur coal is available to the Northwest. Gasification and other advanced technologies have improved the efficiency and reduced the environmental impacts of coal-fired generation. Additional coal-fired generation could supply 5,000 average megawatts, or more, of energy at costs of 3.7 to 4.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. These costs are expected to remain relatively stable, but they would be sensitive to carbon dioxide control measures. Constraints to the development of additional coal-fired power plants include public resistance to transmission line construction, cooling water supplies at arid sites, local air-quality impacts, environmental impacts of mining and transporting coal, and the risk that carbon dioxide emissions will be taxed.

Forest thinning residue: Some proposals for restoring degraded east-side forests involve selective removal of trees. These thinnings would be marketed as saw logs or pulping chips where possible. Unmerchantable materials could be chipped and distributed on-site or, alternatively, used as a power plant fuel. About 300 to 1,000 average megawatts could be generated using forest thinnings, at costs ranging from 5.1 to 6.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. These megawatt estimates are fairly uncertain. The cost estimates allocate the full cost of the forest thinning process to power production (i.e., including no subsidy from forest restoration programs). Costs are expected to decline slowly as biogasification technology is introduced. Development of this resource would require resolution of the controversy regarding the appropriate approach to east-side forest restoration.

Figure 5-8. New Resource Costs and Availability

Table 5-3. Conservation and Generating Resource Supply Summary

Resource Name [The mill ranges appearing in the resource names (e.g. "0-10 m/kWh") designate resource blocks and may only approximate the actual cost of resources in the block. The actual average cost of the resource block is shown in the Levelized Cost column.] Levelized Cost (Real, 1995 mills/kWh) [These levelized costs assume investor-owned utility financing, 15-year amortization of capital costs for generating resources. Levelized costs for conservation resources are based on the average of investor-owned and public utility financing, with the amortization life being 15 years or the life of the conservation measure, whichever is shorter. ] Average Megawatts
New Commercial 0-10 m/kWh 4.2 123
Commercial Remodel & Retrofit 0-10 m/kWh 4.9 39
Existing Residential Space Heat 0-10 m/kWh 5.0 9
New Residential Space Heat 0-10 m/kWh 5.0 1
Existing Commercial 0-10 m/kWh 5.1 46
New Industrial 0-10 m/kWh 7.3 260
Irrigation 0-10 m/kWh 7.7 2
Irrigation 10-20 m/kWh 13.5 5
New Industrial 10-20 m/kWh 13.7 264
Existing Residential Space Heat 10-20 m/kWh 15.0 17
New Residential Space Heat 10-20 m/kWh 15.0 97
Existing Commercial 10-20 m/kWh 15.1 42
Freezers 10-20 m/kWh 15.9 17
Water Heat 10-20 m/kWh 17.9 291
New Commercial 10-20 m/kWh 18.9 48
New Small Hydropower - Least-cost 19.9 64
Irrigation 20-30 m/kWh 21.8 6
New Industrial 20-30 m/kWh 21.9 126
Commercial Remodel & Retrofit 10-20 m/kWh 22.0 15
Chemical Recovery Cogeneration Upgrades 22.5 195
Existing Residential Space Heat 20-30 m/kWh 25.0 1
New Residential Space Heat 20-30 m/kWh 25.0 129
Compact Fluorescent Lighting 20-30 m/kWh 25.1 47
New Commercial 20-30 m/kWh 25.8 70
Refrigerators 20-30 m/kWh 26.0 88
Water Heat 20-30 m/kWh 26.4 22
Irrigation 30-40 m/kWh 28.9 8
New Natural Gas Combined-cycle, Permitted Sites 29.3 3356
New Natural Gas Combined-cycle, New Sites 29.9 3356
Commercial Remodel & Retrofit 20-30 m/kWh 30.0 22
Existing Commercial 20-30 m/kWh 30.4 49
New Natural Gas Combined-cycle (Dry Cooling) 30.8 4140
Landfill Gas Energy Recovery 31.1 126
New Industrial 30-40 m/kWh 33.2 13
New Commercial 30-40 m/kWh 34.8 25
Existing Residential Space Heat 30-40 m/kWh 35.0 20
New Residential Space Heat 30-40 m/kWh 35.0 10
Existing Commercial 30-40 m/kWh 36.3 42
New Industrial Cogeneration 40 m/kWh and less 36.4 156
Irrigation 40-50 m/kWh 36.6 8
New Boardman Coal Gasification 37.3 867
New Colstrip Coal Gasification 39.1 1627
Clean Combustible Industrial and Municipal Waste 40.0 300
Commercial Remodel & Retrofit 30-40 m/kWh 40.6 8
Wind - Least-cost Winter Peak 41.0 117
New Valmy Coal Gasification 41.2 841
New Centralia Coal Gasification 41.6 867
Existing Commercial 40-50 m/kWh 41.8 68
Water Heat 30-40 m/kWh 41.9 12
Thousand Springs Coal Gasification 41.9 852
Existing Residential Space Heat 40-50 m/kWh 45.0 2
New Residential Space Heat 40-50 m/kWh 45.0 11
New Industrial 40-50 m/kWh 45.0 11
Freezers 40-50 m/kWh 45.3 16
New Commercial 40-50 m/kWh 45.4 42
Wind - Least-cost Spring - Summer Peak 46.7 32
New Small Hydropower - Medium Cost 46.9 89
New Commercial Cogeneration 50 m/kWh and less 46.9 84
New Industrial Cogeneration 40-50 m/kWh 36.4 156
Geothermal - Least-cost 47.7 576
Wind - Medium Cost Winter Peak 49.4 116
Commercial Remodel & Retrofit 40-50 m/kWh 52.9 13
Existing Residential Space Heat >50 m/kWh 55.0 2
New Residential Space Heat >50 m/kWh 55.0 4
Wind - High Cost Winter Peak 55.8 358
New Industrial Cogeneration 50-60 m/kWh 56.2 3339
New Commercial Cogeneration 50-60 m/kWh 57.1 552
Geothermal - Medium Cost 59.6 414
Eastside Forest Thinning Residues 60.6 692
Wind - High Cost Spring - Summer Peak 63.5 79
Water Heat >50 m/kWh 64.7 152
Geothermal - High Cost 72.8 86
New Small Hydropower - High Cost 78.2 45
Central Station Solar Thermal 80.5 467
Existing Commercial >50 m/kWh 82.6 11
* New Commercial >50 m/kWh 125 11
* Commercial Remodel & Retrofit >50 m/kWh 146 4
* Rooftop Solar Photovoltaics, Eastside 192 30
* Not shown in Figure 5-8

Geothermal: The Northwest is thought to have large geothermal resource potential, but the feasibility of commercial generation of electricity from the resource has yet to be demonstrated. An estimated 400 to 3,900 average megawatts could be secured from geothermal resources in the Northwest and neighboring areas at costs of 4.9 to 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. Both quantity and cost estimates are highly uncertain. Costs are expected to decline slowly with the introduction of improved technology. Technology development will, to some extent, be driven by the petroleum industry because of developments in well drilling and other subsurface exploration techniques. Issues associated with geothermal generation include environmental impacts (noise, hydrogen sulfide, geothermal fluids and disposal of drilling materials), effects on hydrothermal systems, and conflicts with ecologically sensitive areas and recreational sites. Projects intended to demonstrate the feasibility of geothermal electric power generation are under development at three Northwest resource areas.

Hydropower: About 170 average megawatts could be secured from new hydropower resources at costs ranging from about 1 cent to 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. This estimate includes expansions to existing hydropower projects, addition of power generation to non-power water control structures and development of high-head, small-scale headwater sites. This estimate does not include efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower projects, additions to existing facilities for the primary purpose of securing capacity, or pumped-storage projects. Hydropower is a mature technology, and costs are expected to remain relatively stable. Habitat modification, stream-flow and water-quality effects, erosion and sedimentation, and land and water use conflicts are issues limiting development.

Industrial cogeneration: Cogeneration plants can supply industrial electricity, space and process heating, and cooling loads. Surplus electricity can be sold back to the electrical grid. The enhanced overall thermal efficiency of cogeneration can reduce the cost and environmental impact of supplying overall energy needs. Fuels used for industrial cogeneration include natural gas, fuel oil, spent pulping liquor, wood residues and coal. Many technologies are available for cogeneration, including reciprocating engines, combustion turbines and steam boilers. Installations are often sized ("thermally matched") to the thermal load of the facility. In theory, thermal matching produces the greatest efficiency and environmental benefits. Alternatively, the power plant can be constructed and operated primarily for power generation, and a relatively small amount of steam could be bled to an adjacent industrial plant.

Cogeneration is common in industries with large thermal loads and on-site production of residue fuels. In the Northwest, these include the pulp and paper, wood products and petrochemical industries. As much as 4,600 megawatts of additional industrial cogeneration could be developed in the Northwest, primarily in the food processing, wood products, pulp and paper, petrochemical, rubber and plastic, primary metals and transportation equipment sectors. The potential would be smaller if the plants were built to be thermally matched.

The cost of electricity from these plants would range from about 2.5 cents to 6.0 cents per kilowatt-hour, with most above 4.0 cents. Improvements in generating technology should help stabilize industrial cogeneration costs. Impediments, in addition to cost-effectiveness, include competing investment opportunities, short payback criteria, and uncertainties regarding the long-term viability of some plants. Benefits include improved reliability of power and steam supplies, and reduced air emissions and water consumption.

Renovation of existing cogeneration installations may present special opportunities for cost-effective cogeneration in the near-term. For example, additional power generation can be secured by upgrading older pulping chemical recovery boilers or by adding generating capability to units. The regionwide potential of chemical recovery plant upgrades and additions is estimated to be as much as 195 average megawatts. A representative cost of energy from projects of this type is 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The cost of specific projects will vary because of the unique circumstances at each facility.

Landfill gas energy recovery: Anaerobic decay of landfilled materials produces a gas containing high concentrations of methane. In most cases, this gas is collected and flared. Another alternative is to use this gas to fuel engine-generator sets or small combustion-turbine power plants. Energy recovery from landfill gas could provide about 125 additional average megawatts at an incremental cost of about 3.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. Landfill gas recovery uses relatively mature technology, and costs are not anticipated to decline significantly. There are few impediments to the development of this resource.

Mixed wood residues: Because of public concerns regarding transportation, air-quality impacts and impacts on recycling programs, it is unlikely that new power plants burning unsorted municipal solid waste will be developed in the foreseeable future. However, clean combustible materials sorted from the municipal solid waste stream and combined with wood residues from industrial sources could be used to fuel new power plants or augment the fuel supply for existing plants.

Energy recovery from clean combustible wastes could provide about 300 average megawatts at costs of 4 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Resource availability is uncertain and may decline as higher-value uses for combustible residues develop. Cost is sensitive to plant size, fuel transportation requirements and the value of cogenerated steam. These costs are expected to decline as biogasification technology is introduced. Biogasification technology will also permit use of agricultural residues, expanding the supply of potential fuel. Impediments include competing higher-value uses for residues, fuel transportation costs and land use conflicts.

Natural gas - bulk power generation: An abundant supply of inexpensive natural gas is available from western Canada and Rocky Mountain fields. Declining gas prices, surplus gas transportation capacity, natural gas price risk-hedging instruments, improvements in combustion turbine performance, decline in equipment and construction prices, and apparent ease of project permitting have resulted in gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbines emerging as the least-cost alternative for new bulk power generation. Sites capable of supporting 7,400 megawatts of additional combined-cycle combustion turbine capacity appear to be available. These could provide 6,800 average megawatts of energy at 2.7 to 3.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (medium gas price forecast). Some of these plants could provide steam to nearby industries.

Technology improvements are expected to offset slowly escalating natural gas prices, while capital costs are likely to remain at current levels. This should lead to stable or slowly escalating electricity costs. Gas-fired combined-cycle power plants can be developed quickly, and have low capital costs and excellent operating flexibility. Issues include long-term gas price stability, nitrogen oxide emissions, consumption of water for cooling and the environmental impacts of natural gas production and processing. The potential effect of carbon dioxide controls is unclear. Because gas-fired combined-cycle plants produce less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuel plants, new gas-fired combined-cycle plants might be substituted for older fossil units.

Natural gas - commercial building cogeneration: Cogeneration plants can supply the space heating and cooling, hot water and electrical needs of commercial buildings. Surplus electricity can be sold back to the electrical grid. The enhanced overall thermal efficiency of cogeneration can reduce the cost and environmental impact of supplying energy requirements. Natural gas is the preferred fuel for commercial cogeneration, and many technologies are available including reciprocating engines, combustion turbines and steam boilers. Packaged fuel cell cogeneration plants have recently appeared on the market. Existing applications are typically confined to relatively large thermal loads such as college campuses.

About 640 megawatts of new commercial cogeneration is estimated to be available for development, primarily in the hospital, military and correctional sectors. The cost of electricity from these plants would range from about 4.5 to 6.0 cents per kilowatt-hour. Though high compared to current market prices, commercial cogeneration costs may be partially offset by transmission and distribution cost savings. The cost of commercial cogeneration is expected to remain stable as improvements in generating technology offset fuel cost escalation. Production-driven improvements in fuel cells could lead to substantial improvements in the cost-effectiveness of commercial cogeneration. In addition to cost, impediments to commercial cogeneration include interconnection issues, competing investment opportunities, short payback criteria, and air quality and other local environmental impacts.

Nuclear: The partially completed WNP-1 and WNP-3 nuclear plants were preserved for many years in case they were needed in the future. However, Bonneville terminated preservation funding as the cost of alternative sources of power declined. Although the units remain intact, completion of either is unlikely unless it is federally financed as a plutonium disposal project.

Advanced, passive-safety, modular plant designs have been developed to counter public concerns regarding plant safety and to reduce costs to competitive levels. The first advanced, passive-safety plant was intended to be in service by 2003. However, no plants of advanced design are currently planned for construction. The design goals for advanced passive-safety plants would result in energy costs of about 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. Experience with other new technologies suggests that target costs are unlikely to be achieved. Nuclear plants could produce large quantities of base-load energy without significant carbon dioxide production. However, the capital-intensive nature of nuclear technology, public concerns regarding plant safety and nuclear waste disposal, and performance uncertainties associated with new nuclear technologies are major constraints.

Ocean energy: Limited wave power potential may be present along the outer coast. Because of immature technology, environmental concerns and high costs, the development of this resource is not anticipated in the foreseeable future.

Solar: Southeastern Oregon and southern Idaho have relatively good solar insolation and large areas suitable for the installation of solar generating equipment. But the resource is diurnal and intermittent and seasonally non-coincidental with most Northwest loads. The least-cost central-station solar generation technology currently available is parabolic trough with supplemental natural gas boiler. The estimated cost of electricity from a hybrid gas/solar parabolic trough at prime Northwest solar resource sites is about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Small-scale photovoltaic applications, at current costs of 20 to 25 cents per kilowatt-hour may be cost-effective in locations that are difficult to serve with grid power. Photovoltaic costs are expected to continue to decline at a relatively rapid rate, and small-scale applications providing distributed system benefits are expected to become increasingly common. Central-station solar generation would first become competitive in the Southwest, where good temporal and geographic coincidence between insolation and loads is present.

Wind: The Northwest possesses numerous wind resource areas suitable for electric power generation. The aggregate potential is in the thousands of megawatts, but the greater portion is in north-central Montana, remote from the region's load centers. The best wind sites have a potential of yielding about 700 average megawatts (in addition to current projects) at costs ranging from 3.6 to 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. This assumes only limited development of the prime Blackfoot wind resource area of north-central Montana, because of transmission constraints. The quantity estimate is subject to uncertainties regarding wind resource area quality, extent, developable area and turbine array density. The cost estimate excludes the federal production incentive, scheduled to expire for projects placed in service after 1999.

Technology improvements and production economies are expected to provide continued cost reduction. Impediments include transmission constraints, avian mortality and aesthetic impacts. The resource is intermittent, and the winds of some otherwise favorable resource areas are not seasonally coincidental with regional loads. Four commercial-scale wind power projects are under development in the Northwest.

General Prospects for Development of New Generating Resources

Though electrical load growth in the Northwest is expected to continue at rates comparable to the past several years, few new generating projects are scheduled for development. Rather, utilities (and some consumers) are meeting new loads by wholesale power purchases. Northwest peak period (fall and winter) wholesale prices reflect the variable cost of operating existing generating plants located in the Southwest. Many of these are older dual-fuel (natural gas or fuel oil) steam-electric units in California. These plants were not economical to operate for other than peaking purposes for many years because of high fuel prices. The decline in natural gas prices has enabled the operators of these plants to produce competitive base-load power. Moreover, the variable costs of many of these units are lower than the fully allocated costs of new combined-cycle plants, the least-costly new bulk generating resource.

The flexibility of wholesale purchases is attractive in a time of uncertainty and change in the industry. Wholesale contracts require little lead time, require no capital investment and are available for short durations.

Wholesale prices are forecast to gradually rise because of natural gas price escalation and the cost of implementing more stringent nitrogen oxide emission controls on older gas-fired power plants. [The latter can be achieved by acquisition of emission offsets, addition of nitrogen oxide controls to existing plants or by repowering or replacing existing steam-electric plants with new combined-cycle technology.] Even considering these costs, off-peak power from the Southwest is expected to remain highly competitive with new generation. As wholesale power prices rise toward the fully allocated cost of new resources, construction of new plants will eventually resume.

Because of their low cost, an abundance of suitable sites and favorable technical and environmental characteristics, natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plants are the most likely new bulk power generating resource alternative. Continuing technical improvements are expected to partially offset increases in natural gas prices. A few new hydropower projects, upgrades of existing hydropower and thermal plants, and a few new plants using biomass residues will likely be competitive with new gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbines in the near-term. Technological improvements and production efficiencies are expected to improve the competitive position of many renewable resources and coal-fired power plants (Figure 5-9).

Absent controls on greenhouse gas emissions, new resource needs for the next decade, or longer, will mostly be met with off-peak operation of Southwestern plants, new gas-fired combined-cycle plants, and, possibly, continuing conservation activities (Figure 5-10a). Greenhouse gas controls (such as a carbon tax) could significantly affect this picture. The competitive positions of conservation, renewables and nuclear options would improve relative to existing and new fossil-fuel alternatives (Figure 5-10b). The role of natural gas in this situation is somewhat unclear. Because of their high thermal efficiency and low carbon-content fuel, gas-fired combined-cycle plants might be economic substitutes for older coal or gas-fired steam plants.

Figure 5-9. Resource Cost Trends
[The increase in the cost of wind-generated electricity shown for year 2000 is due to scheduled expiration of federal production incentives. The mid-term increases in the cost of forest thinning biomass is due to the near-term availability of several retired biomass power plants that can be refurbished.]

Figure 5-10. Effect of a Carbon Tax on the Mix of New Resource

5-E. Hydropower System Uncertainties

Another uncertainty the Northwest is facing is how much of the hydroelectric system will be available to generate electricity given operational changes to the system intended to increase fish survival. The existing hydroelectric system and current operations are described in Chapter 4. This section outlines the types of energy and capacity impacts that could occur from changing the operation of that system in an attempt to aid fish.

Congress has recently implemented a budget limitation on Bonneville's expenditures for salmon restoration, including actual program costs and costs for fish-related power purchases and lost revenues. This could provide an adequate budget to maintain current river operations. However, as more information is gathered and more research is conducted, the operation of the river may be further modified. This could lead to more or fewer constraints, depending on the results of the research. This uncertainty is similar to the possibility of a future carbon tax. It may happen, but the timing, magnitude and likelihood is unknown.

It is not now known what set of fish and wildlife recovery measures the region will eventually implement. The Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, [Document #94-55, Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program , December 14, 1994, Northwest Power Planning Council.] the National Marine Fisheries Service's biological opinion [Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon , March 1995, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.] and the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan [Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit - Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes , Vol. 1, June 15, 1995, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.] have all been proposed as salmon recovery plans. Each suggested operation is different and affects the hydroelectric system's capability to produce electricity in different ways. Each scenario would change, to varying degrees, the hydroelectric system's ability to provide both firm energy and peaking capacity. Each scenario could lead to a different set of resource actions for the region.

The current analysis uses an estimate of the availability of hydroelectricity based on the National Marine Fisheries Service's biological opinion. To provide an idea of the size of changes that could be faced, three additional scenarios were analyzed and are described below. They span a range of potential river operations with impacts that are between a gain of 500 average megawatts to a loss of 3,000 average megawatts compared to the biological opinion. Table 5-4 summarizes the impacts of the base case and three additional scenarios relative to current operations. The energy figures shown are the net energy losses. No attempt was made to determine the change in the firm energy load carrying capability (FELCC) of the system.

Water budget operation: This scenario assumes river operations as they were in 1991. It represents an operation with energy and capacity gains compared to current operations. It was the operation in place for the 1991 Power Plan.

Drawdown proposal: This scenario reflects a hypothetical operation that produces both higher energy and capacity losses than current operations. It includes a drawdown of the four lower Snake River dams to natural river elevations year round. All of the energy and capacity from those projects is lost. It should be noted that this is not the same river operation as is contained in the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program's Strategy for Salmon.

Tribal proposal: This scenario represents an operation that reduces both the firm energy and capacity of the system well beyond current levels. The operation proposed in the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan is used for this case. This operation calls for higher flow augmentation in both the Snake and Columbia rivers and a drawdown to natural river elevations year round at the four lower Snake River dams and at the John Day Dam.

Table 5-4. Hydroelectric Energy and Capacity Gains or Losses Relative to the 1995 Biological Opinion
[This table reflects only the gain or loss of generating capacity compared to operation under the Biological Opinion. It does not reflect shifting hydrogeneration to other months, when it is not lost, but it may have less value. Calculated losses to firm generating capacity (FELCC) include both factors. The effect on electricity generation from the base case used here -- the Biological Opinion -- is discussed more fully in Chapter 4.]

Case Water Budget Drawdown Proposal Tribal Proposal
Energy Impacts

(average megawatts)

 +500 -1,300 -3,000
Capacity Impacts

(megawatts)

 +800 -2,700 -5,200

The issue for this draft power plan is whether these potential hydropower changes would lead to different resource choices. In general, the answer is no. The availability of additional market purchases in the near term, plus relatively short lead time resources like combined-cycle combustion turbines mean the region could adapt to further losses of hydroelectric capacity, albeit at a cost. Losses on the order of either the Drawdown Proposal or the Tribal Proposal scenarios would require lead time to build replacement resources or increase transmission capability to maintain reliable service. Replacement resources, for example, require from two to five years to bring into service. If needed, intertie expansions might require additional lead time because of the controversy that often accompanies the construction of new, or expansion of existing, transmission lines. On the other hand, were hydroelectric system restrictions to be eased, thus increasing hydroelectric capability, the region would generally be able to reduce more expensive short-term purchases from the Western market.

^ top

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

The makeup of the Northwest's electric power system continues to evolve in response to a variety of forces and trends. The existing system and its capability are described in detail in Appendix A. Figure 4-1 shows the composition of generating resources in the region. Generating resources in the Northwest amount to more than 17,000 average megawatts.

The majority of regional generation, about 66 percent, comes from the hydroelectric system. Coal resources are the next largest component, representing 18 percent of all generating resources, followed by natural gas, nuclear and biomass resources.

4-A. Resources Added Since 1991

Beginning in the late 1980s, increased economic activity and accompanying electrical load growth initiated a period of active resource acquisition in the Northwest. For most of this period, utilities relied on competitive bidding, conservation activities and the development of utility-owned projects for meeting growing resource needs. Competitive bidding appeared well-suited both to secure low-cost generating resources and to account for environmental externalities, resource diversity objectives and other non-market societal objectives.

Some conservation also was acquired through competitive bidding, but utility programs, building-and appliance-efficiency standards, market transformation initiatives and other efforts were generally more effective for securing conservation. Since 1980, the Northwest has secured more than 1,200 megawatts of electricity savings. About 520 megawatts of that total have been saved since 1991.

Figure 4-1. Generating Resources of the Northwest Power System (Firm Energy Basis)
[graphic doesn't display correctly]

Conservation and generating projects totaling about 2,470 average megawatts of energy were secured during the 1991 through 1995 period (Figure 4-2). Declining natural gas price forecasts, improving combustion turbine technology, declining capital costs, and relative ease and speed of construction continued to improve the attractiveness of gas-fired combined-cycle power plants. Natural gas-fired projects providing about 1,400 average megawatts of energy were acquired during this period, comprising about 57 percent of total acquisitions on an energy basis. About 520 average megawatts of conservation were acquired since 1991, representing about 21 percent of total new acquisitions. Renewable energy projects, primarily hydroelectric and projects using biomass residue fuels, provided about 420 megawatts of resources that were committed to during this period. The balance of acquisitions include upgrades to existing thermal projects and projects using coal or petroleum coke.

Natural gas resources have increased the most in the last five years, from 3 percent in 1991 to 7 percent in 1996, primarily due to the fact that natural gas is among the least expensive and most flexible new generating options available. Although concerns have been expressed about what some have termed an "over-reliance" on gas-fired new generating resources, overall resource diversity is probably greater than it ever has been because of the new gas-fired resources. Furthermore, because of the increasing importance of the Western wholesale electricity market, resource diversity in the Pacific Northwest will probably be of lesser significance than West Coast resource diversity. The Northwest and California systems combined provide significant resource diversity.

Figure 4-2. Resource Acquisitions: 1991 through 1995 (average megawatts)

[Projects completed during the 1991 through 1995 period, or under construction at the close of 1995. Planned projects for which construction has not commenced are not included in Figure 4-2. Graphic doesn't display correctly.]

Although regional electrical load growth continues, there have been no solicitations for new power plants within the past year. Declining natural gas prices and an increasingly active wholesale market have made the surplus of capacity on the interconnected Western system less expensive, more evident and more accessible. Utilities and large consumers are purchasing inexpensive wholesale power produced by existing plants on the Western system rather than building or purchasing the output of new power generating facilities. Low-price wholesale power has even led to suspension of construction for several projects, most notably the 248-megawatt Tenaska Washington II gas-fired combined-cycle plant.

Conservation activities, too, have declined. Conservation acquisitions in 1996 are expected to amount to only 70 average megawatts, about 60 percent of the region's 1995 acquisitions.

The Northwest power system has also lost resources over the last five years, including:

  • Reduction of the operational flexibility and generating capability of the Columbia River Basin hydroelectric system as a result of changes in the pattern of reservoir storage and water releases intended to improve the survival of anadromous and resident fish. This has resulted in an estimated reduction of 850 average megawatts of firm energy capability;
  • Closure of the Trojan nuclear power plant in the face of a requirement for significant additional capital investment to remedy problems encountered at the plant. This has meant the loss of 725 average megawatts of energy.

The changes in Northwest electricity resources since 1991 have probably resulted in a net increase in the emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas implicated in global warming. Factors that would increase carbon dioxide production include the closing of the Trojan nuclear power plant and the loss of hydroelectric generation due to spilling water to enhance fish passage.

Fish mitigation activities that shift power production seasonally or from firm to nonfirm periods do not necessarily increase carbon dioxide production. Power produced during fish flow periods, for example, may displace carbon-dioxide emitting fossil-fuel plants in the Southwest. But, foregone hydropower during other seasons and the lost power from Trojan will be replaced by higher carbon-dioxide emitting generation, except to the extent the losses are replaced by conservation, hydroelectricity or biomass generation. The net effect of emissions from new gas-fired combustion turbines is difficult to ascertain because the turbines may displace the operation of power plants that emit even more carbons, such as coal-fired plants.

The remainder of this chapter describes the major electricity resources in use in the Northwest.

4-B. The Hydroelectric System

The Northwest's hydroelectric system, although reduced in its capability and flexibility, is still an adaptable and low-cost resource. It produces more than two-thirds of the electricity in the region. In the near term, the region's advantageous position with respect to gas markets and the relative flexibility of gas-fired generation are important complements to the hydroelectric system. The flexibility of the hydroelectric system may also prove valuable when intermittent renewable resources are integrated into the power system. The challenge is to maintain and enhance the value of the hydroelectric system, while at the same time providing for non-power uses such as flood control, irrigation, recreation, transportation and fish and wildlife.

The hydroelectric system differs from thermal generating resources in that its instantaneous generating capacity far exceeds the amount of energy it can produce over the course of a year. This is because reservoirs cannot store enough water to keep turbines running at full capacity all year. Consequently, Northwest utilities have traditionally focused on meeting annual average energy needs as opposed to daily peak electricity demands.

The Columbia River hydroelectric system's sustained peaking capacity [Sustained peaking capacity is the power system's ability to meet electricity demands during the peak hours of the day for a sustained period of time, usually the five working days of the week. The peak demand period per workday typically lasts 10 hours.] is about 25,000 megawatts, [1995 Pacific Northwest Loads and Resources Study, Bonneville Power Administration " The White Book ," December 1995.] but limitations on the storage capacity of the system result in significant variations in the system's energy output from year to year, depending on annual rainfall and snowpack accumulation. In the driest years, the hydroelectric system produces only about 11,700 average megawatts of energy. Utility planners can expect at least that much energy in any given year, so it is considered guaranteed or "firm" energy. In the wettest years, the hydroelectric system produces about 20,000 average megawatts. In average water years, the dams generate approximately 16,500 average megawatts.

Generation in excess of what can be guaranteed is commonly referred to as "nonfirm" or "secondary" energy. Nonfirm energy is sold on the spot market or under short-term contracts at lower prices than is obtained for firm energy. It is used to serve interruptible loads or to displace more expensive resources both in and out of the region.

Accommodating Fish and Power

The Columbia River historically supported one of the world's largest salmon populations. Over the years, however, the number of salmon and steelhead in the river has decreased dramatically. Several Columbia River Basin salmon species are now extinct. Others have declined nearly to the point of extinction. Hydroelectric development has been an important factor in that decline. The natural flow of the Columbia River peaks in spring and early summer, when the snowpacks melt. Energy production from the hydroelectric system depends on this flow of water. If reservoirs were not available to store water for later use, the energy derived from the hydroelectric system would rise and fall with the natural flow of the river. This would not be a very reliable or valuable source of electricity because peak river flows (in spring) do not coincide with peak electricity demands (in winter). Figure 4-3 illustrates the monthly pattern of river flows under natural conditions, before hydroelectric development, and under current conditions, which include changes in dam operations to protect salmon and other fish and wildlife. [Natural flow data was obtained from the Bonneville Power Administration's document "Seasonal Volumes and Statistics, Columbia River Basin 1928-1989," July 1993.]

By building dams to hold back some of the spring runoff for use the following winter, the output from the hydroelectric system can better meet the seasonal fluctuations in electricity use in the Northwest. Although this shifting of river flows makes the hydroelectric system a more valuable source of power, it also creates a more hostile environment for migrating juvenile salmon. Inundation of spawning and rearing habitat and hazards created at the dams themselves have also affected salmon production and survival.

But the dams were not built for electricity alone. They also help control flooding, provide water for irrigation and industrial use, improve navigation on the river and expand recreational opportunities in the Pacific Northwest. All these uses can have adverse impacts on both fish and power. In addition, salmon populations have been affected by commercial and sport fishing, ocean conditions, hatcheries and hatchery-bred fish, habitat destruction caused by logging, grazing and other developments, and a host of other factors that are not well understood. The Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program addresses all of these impacts.

Because the hydroelectric system is one of the important factors affecting fish and wildlife survival, its operation has been modified since the early 1980s in an attempt to create a better balance between the generation of electricity and protection for fish and wildlife. As at-risk fish stocks have weakened, further constraints on the operation of the hydroelectric system have been implemented. The effect of most of these changes is to shift the release of water back toward the spring and early summer to more closely approximate the natural flows of the river. By releasing less water from headwater storage projects during the winter months, more is available for later release during the spring smolt migration period.

Figure 4-3. Average River Flows at The Dalles Dam

However, this action reduces the amount of energy available from the hydroelectric system during the winter months and forces the production of energy during a time when it is not in great demand. This effectively reduces the firm energy generating capability of the hydroelectric system. During dry years, lost winter energy must be replaced if all firm energy demands are to be served.

The Council's 1982 Fish and Wildlife Program included measures that reduced the firm energy generating capability of the hydroelectric system by an estimated 300 average megawatts. In addition, water laden with juvenile salmon was spilled over dams to divert the young fish from the turbines. The spills further reduced the firm energy generating capability of the system by about 50 average megawatts. This was the river operation that was used as the basis for resource analysis in the 1991 Power Plan.

Since 1991, more fish and wildlife protection measures have been implemented. Changes in river operations since 1991, including those enacted by the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect endangered Snake River salmon, have reduced the firm generating capability by an additional estimated 850 average megawatts (about a 7-percent loss). Consequently, the total reduction in firm energy generating capability of the hydroelectric system since the Council adopted its first fish and wildlife program amounts to approximately 1,200 average megawatts, representing a 10-percent loss. Figure 4-4 illustrates the average monthly change in hydroelectric generation due to fish and wildlife measures.

Under current operations, the hydroelectric system produces an average of nearly 10,000 megawatt-months less energy in the fall and winter compared to 1991 operations. About 4,000 megawatt-months are shifted into spring and summer months, and nearly 6,000 megawatt-months of energy are spilled or lost due to efficiency losses. [Efficiency losses occur when power is generated at lower reservoir elevations. Reservoirs are operated at lower elevations in order to increase the velocity of the river.]

Figure 4-4. Changes in Hydroelectric Generation by Month Since 1991

In some fall or winter months, it can be necessary to purchase electricity from outside the region to provide adequate water for spring flow augmentation and serve firm Northwest electricity demands. The total cost to the power system of operations to protect fish and wildlife are calculated by combining power purchase costs, lost revenues due to reductions in firm power production and changes in the amount and value of nonfirm power.

A more constrained operation of the mainstem Columbia and Snake river reservoirs also results in capacity losses. For example, prior to the 1980s, the elevation of the lower Snake run-of-river projects varied five feet or more on a daily basis. These dams are drafted during the peak-demand hours of the day and refilled during the light-load hours of the night. If these reservoirs are now constrained to fluctuate only about a foot to benefit various fish populations, they lose much of their ability to meet daily peak-demand swings. This limited operation may also result in the loss of nonfirm energy. If reservoirs are not allowed to fill completely during the lightly loaded hours of the night due to elevation limitations, some water may have to be spilled, resulting in lost generation.

4-C. Other Generating Resources

In addition to the hydroelectric system, other sources of bulk electric power in the Northwest include large coal-fired power plants, the Washington Public Power Supply System's WNP-2, and simple-cycle and combined-cycle natural gas combustion turbines. Electricity is also produced by industrial cogeneration plants, small biomass plants and numerous small hydroelectric projects. A table and map of individual Northwest power generating projects is provided in Appendix A.

Coal-fired Power Plants

Following the development of the Columbia River hydroelectric system, coal and nuclear power were viewed as the most economical new sources of electricity. Abundant supplies of low-cost, low-sulfur coal are available from the Rocky Mountain states and western Canada fields, and more limited supplies of lesser quality from Washington fields. Accordingly, between 1968 and 1986, 14 coal-fired power units at six sites were brought into service by Northwest utilities. These large plants can serve about 6,660 megawatts of winter peak load, of which about 3,990 megawatts are currently dedicated to Northwest loads. These plants can produce about 5,520 average megawatts of energy, of which 3,395 average megawatts are dedicated to Northwest loads. Because the minemouth units have low operating costs, they are operated under nearly all conditions. Units that use coal supplied by rail are more expensive to operate and currently compete with natural gas combined-cycle power plants and off-peak power from Southwestern plants.

Nuclear Power Plants

Concurrent with the development of the region's large coal-fired power plants, regional utilities initiated construction of 10 nuclear plants. Only two, Trojan, in Oregon, and WNP-2, in Washington, were eventually completed. [Trojan was completed in 1976 and WNP-2 in 1984. The Hanford Generating Project operated on steam from the N-reactor, a Hanford Production Reactor, until 1988, when it was shut down upon termination of plutonium production operations at Hanford. ] Two partially completed plants, WNP-1 and WNP-3, were preserved for many years for completion, if needed. With the continuing decline in gas prices, they have been terminated. Nuclear plant operating costs have generally been higher and plant availabilities lower than anticipated when these plants were ordered.

Trojan was permanently shut down in 1993, when it was concluded that the cost of a needed steam generator replacement would result in production costs barely competitive with the cost of power from new resources. WNP-2, upgraded from its original peak capacity, can now serve about 1,170 megawatts of winter peak load. The plant produced 822 average megawatts of energy in Bonneville's 1995 Fiscal Year and was available to produce 890 average megawatts. WNP-2 currently has operating costs that are above market prices. The Washington Public Power Supply System, owner and operator of the plant, has established aggressive cost reduction targets. However, continued low market prices pose a risk for the continued operation of WNP-2.

Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plants

The abundant gas resources of Western Canada and the Rocky Mountain states are accessible to the Northwest by two interstate pipelines. Declining natural gas prices and improving combustion turbine technology have made gas-fired combined-cycle power plants the least-costly new resource for bulk power production. Most of these projects consist of one or two combined-cycle combustion turbine units, and many serve modest cogeneration loads.

Six gas-fired combined-cycle projects were in service in the Northwest by the end of 1995. Two additional projects are under construction. [Combined-cycle power plants in operation in the Northwest by the end of 1995 include Beaver, March Point, Sumas Energy, Tenaska Washington I, Encogen and Coyote Springs 1. Hermiston Generating Project is scheduled for service in 1996. Construction of the River Road project commenced in February 1996. Additional information regarding these projects is supplied in Appendix A.] Projects in service or under construction at the end of 1995 will serve about 1,900 megawatts of winter peak load and can produce about 1,460 average megawatts of energy. Some of these projects are owned by independent developers and others by utilities.

Additional projects totaling about 930 megawatts of capacity are currently permitted for construction. One of these projects is partially constructed, but further construction has been suspended. Construction on the other projects is not scheduled. License applications for additional projects of about 2,700 megawatts total capacity are being considered by licensing agencies. Developers have indicated that they will apply for licenses for several additional projects.

Three of the projects for which licenses are being sought are part of Bonneville's Resource Contingency Program. This program responded to the 1991 Power plan's call for obtaining "options" on the development of 2,450 average megawatts of new generating resources. By taking projects through the siting and licensing process, but delaying the actual construction until the market for the power is clear, it is possible to reduce the risk of investing in generation in advance of need. The options concept was devised primarily for long lead time resources and a regulated generation market. The value of options with resources that have much shorter lead times and a competitive generation market may not be as great as it was under those earlier conditions. On the other hand, siting and licensing some projects in advance of market demand may continue to provide some benefits for both prospective developers and the public.

Industrial Cogeneration

Industrial cogeneration in the forest products industry has long been a component of Northwest electric power generation. These plants include chemical recovery boilers in the pulp and paper industry, and power boilers fired by wood residues, fuel oil and gas in both the pulp and paper and lumber and wood products sectors. More recently, gas-fired combustion turbines have been installed as industrial cogeneration units.

Because of the many mill closures of recent years, and because many industrial cogeneration plants do not sell power offsite or generate power only when fuel costs are favorable, a precise inventory of operating industrial cogeneration plants is difficult to obtain. There are estimated to be approximately 70 plants in operation. These total in excess of 770 megawatts of capacity and are capable of producing in excess of 600 average megawatts of energy. Most industrial cogeneration plants in the Northwest are owned by the host facility, but recently several have been developed by utilities.

Other Renewable Resource Projects

Biomass: Many of the cogeneration plants described above use wood residues, spent pulping liquor and other biomass fuels. The number and diversity of small biomass plants has expanded in recent years and now includes plants using pulping liquor, wood residues, landfill gas, municipal solid waste and wastewater treatment plant gas.

Hydroelectric: Many hydroelectric projects have been developed on coastal streams, tributaries of Puget Sound and tributaries of the Columbia River. Most suitable large-scale sites have been developed, and recent development has focused on headwater diversion projects, projects on irrigation systems and upgrades of older hydroelectric projects.

Geothermal: There has been no commercial development of the potentially abundant geothermal resources of the Northwest for electric power generation. [Small demonstration projects operated briefly at Raft River, Idaho, and Lakeview, Oregon. Numerous direct applications of geothermal energy for space or process heating are found in the region.] Pilot projects are being developed at Newberry Volcano, in Oregon, and Glass Mountain, in Northern California, to explore the cost and feasibility of using these resources for power generation. Though it is unlikely that these projects will be competitive with the near-term wholesale power market, geothermal may prove to be an important source of renewable power in the long term.

Wind: Four commercial-scale wind projects are being developed to explore the cost and feasibility of using this resource for power generation in the Northwest. Though more expensive than electricity from new gas-fired combined-cycle power plants, wind power is the least-costly renewable alternative for producing large quantities of energy.

Solar: Solar photovoltaic power is often cost-effective for small, remote loads. Applications of this type continue to increase.

Other Projects

Several gas and oil-fired combustion turbines serve peak loads and may generate bulk power when gas prices are low. Other gas or oil-fired small combustion turbines, older steam plants and engine-generator sets provide emergency electricity service.

4-D. Conservation

Conservation is the first-priority electric power resource in the Northwest Power Act, where it is defined as "any reduction in electric power consumption as a result of increases in the efficiency of energy use, production, or distribution." As a result of utility-supported conservation efforts undertaken since the passage of the Act in 1980, the cumulative conservation savings enjoyed by the region's electricity consumers in 1996 amounts to about 1,000 average megawatts. This level of annual savings is equivalent to the power output of five average-sized gas-fired combustion turbines. Utility-funded energy conserved since the passage of the Act amounts to nearly 60 billion kilowatt-hours, with a retail value to consumers of $2.5 billion.

An additional 200 average megawatts are estimated to have been saved through programs, codes and standards at local, state and national levels. Figure 4-5 depicts the annual utility-sponsored first-year conservation savings by sector from 1978 to 1994. This information comes from Nutrak, the Council's Northwest Utility Conservation Tracking System.

To accomplish these savings, the region has weatherized more than half a million homes or apartments, replaced thousands of showerheads with efficient models, installed efficiency measures for a quarter-million irrigated farm acres, produced several hundred thousand new high-efficiency site-built homes and 65,000 high-efficiency factory-built homes, upgraded the residential and commercial energy codes across the region, made conservation modifications to the aluminum refining plants, and developed a thriving energy-efficiency industry. These accomplishments have required perseverance, commitment, fresh thinking and hard work. They also required an estimated outlay of more than $2 billion. The Council has estimated that these savings were acquired at an average real levelized utility cost of about 2 to 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, about half the cost of the next most costly resource available at the time.

The pattern of conservation acquisition over time demonstrates some of the flexibility of the resource. After a period of surplus generating capacity in the mid-1980s, the 1991 Power Plan forecast a need for new resources and called for the region to acquire at least 1,500 average megawatts of energy savings by the end of the decade.

Figure 4-5. Regional Summary of First Year Conservation Savings by Sector, 1978-1994

This meant a shift in emphasis from conservation "capability building" to conservation resource acquisition. [Conservation capability building in the mid to late 1980s was directed at maintaining a viable conservation infrastructure and carrying out experimentation to identify viable strategies for conservation acquisition. The major exception to this was the Conservation/Modernization project carried out with the aluminum companies in the late 1980s. The purpose of this project was as much or more to maintain the viability of the aluminum industry in this region in a period of depressed world aluminum prices as it was to acquire conservation savings.] From 1991 through 1994, the region's electric utilities acquired about 400 average megawatts of energy savings, exceeding the expectations of the 1991 plan. Since 1980, the region's public utilities, including Bonneville, have delivered about 56 percent of the total savings, and the investor-owned utilities delivered about 44 percent. The figure below charts the public/investor-owned utility split.

The ups and downs of annual conservation efforts shown in Figure 4-6 are due to the fact that the region was in need of electricity in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and conservation efforts were accelerated. In the early to middle 1980s, the region was in a period of surplus capacity, and conservation efforts were slowed. In the early 1990s, there was again a need for resources, and the region responded once again by increasing conservation efforts. In the mid-1990s, conservation is again being slowed, as utilities see an uncertain future, and inexpensive energy is abundant in the West Coast market.

Fuel Choice

The issue of fuel choice is related to electricity efficiency. The specific issue raised for the Council has been direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses as an alternative to the use of electricity generated by burning natural gas. In 1994, the Council studied the direct use of natural gas in homes. The study found that, although in many cases direct use of natural gas is more energy efficient than electricity use, the most economically efficient resource is very application-specific.

In general, conversion to natural gas is most cost-effective in homes that use a lot of energy. Thus, large homes, poorly insulated homes, or homes in colder climates tend to be the most promising conversion candidates. The Council estimated there might be 730 average megawatts of cost-effective residential fuel conversion savings available in the region. This was primarily from conversions of electric water heaters or electric forced-air furnaces to natural gas. Just as lower avoided electricity costs have reduced the potential amount of cost-effective electricity conservation, so would it reduce the amount of cost-effective fuel conversions.

The Council adopted a policy of considering direct use of natural gas as an alternative to conservation or electricity generation. The policy further stated that market-based approaches were the preferred method of pursuing cost-effective direct gas use. The primary methods of implementing this policy were thought to be encouraging the efficient pricing of electricity and ensuring that conservation incentive payments were not distorting market decisions away from direct use of natural gas where that is the more cost-effective option.

Both of these market-distorting problems are being substantially solved by the restructuring of the electricity industry. Low-priced natural gas generation alternatives have reduced the marginal cost of electricity to near the average cost-based electricity price. As a result, much more accurate price signals are evolving in the electricity market. Electricity market restructuring may also substantially eliminate the ability of electric utilities to make incentive payments for increased electric efficiency. Even before these changes, the market penetration of natural gas had been quite strong in areas where gas is available. With the restructuring of the electricity industry, there is no longer a convincing need to intervene in the fuel-choice market, nor is there really any effective way to do so.

Figure 4-6. First Year Conservation Savings by Utility Type (Public/Investor-Owned)

^ top

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

 

The introduction of competition into the Northwest electricity industry is the overarching consideration motivating the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System. Both the reality of wholesale competition, with much of its focus on the Bonneville Power Administration, and the anticipation of retail competition have captured the attention of the electricity industry and those interested in its effects on the region. Competition in some form will happen. However, how competition evolves in the region will certainly influence how fully the potential benefits of competition are achieved; how the benefits and costs are distributed; the cost and reliability of our power supply; the effects on the environment; and the future role of current institutions, including public and investor-owned utilities, the Bonneville Power Administration and the Council. In the words of one authority on electricity industry restructuring, "You don't just say "We're going to have a competitive market." You have to think very carefully about how the pieces fit together with different mixes of regulation and deregulation." [Hogan, William, "it's all in the Structure," The Electricity Journal, November 1995, p. 60.]

3-A. Benefits of Competition

A fully competitive market for energy services has the potential to create tremendous benefits for the electricity consumers of the Northwest. Competition drives producers to become more efficient, thus lowering prices. It also spurs the creation of new products tailored for specific market niches, providing a greater range of choice to consumers. There are indirect benefits of competition that are equally significant. Historically, low electricity costs have been a major factor in the economic growth of this region. Competition promises to continue that trend and sustain the expansion of the Northwest economy. Competition in electricity markets will result in more transparency of electricity prices and of what is included in these prices. For example, it will be much easier to tell how much of an electric bill is paying for kilowatt-hours, how much is for distribution services, how prices are different at different times and so on. This should lead to greater efficiency. For all these reasons, competition should be embraced. The tricky part will be restructuring the current electric power industry so that effective competition, not just deregulated oligopolies, emerges to benefit all consumers.

3-B. Principles for a Competitive Electricity Market

A well-accepted definition of a perfectly competitive market is a market where no individual participant is large enough to influence the market price of the product. [Samuelson, Paul A., Economics, Seventh Edition, p. 41.] Although we in the United States like to think of ours as a competitive economy, in reality we have a mixed economy. This is because the conditions for perfect competition are seldom met in an industry. Some industries are inherently monopolistic and have traditionally been subject to regulation. For other industries, there is antitrust legislation, enforced in the federal courts, to ensure that a reasonable degree of competition is maintained.

This draft assumes that the portion of the electric utility industry that is opened to competition will be governed by antitrust laws. However, these laws do not apply to federal agencies. This creates a unique issue for the Northwest because more than half the power generated in the region comes from federal sources.

As the Comprehensive Review progresses, it is important to remember that the act of deregulating does not guarantee that adequate competition will result. Without adequate competition, the region will not see the benefits expected from deregulation. The proposed new structure of the electric utility industry should foster and protect competition where it is feasible, and separate competitive markets from non-competitive markets that require continued regulation. In addition, the inherent limitations of fully competitive markets need to be acknowledged.

Absence of Market Power

The absence of dominant market power is the key to fair and effective competition. That is, no player has the ability to control prices and profits. Excessive market power can arise from several factors, all of which require consideration in the course of any restructuring. The sources of market power are: too few sellers; restricted access to markets; mixing of regulated and unregulated activities; and, more generally, situations in which not all participants are subject to the same rules and requirements.

Many Sellers

Market power exists when there are so few sellers that those sellers are able to manipulate prices. [Newberry, David M., "Power Markets and Market Power," The Energy Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1995, pp. 39-66.] Where there are too few sellers, deregulation may just trade regulated monopolies for unregulated oligopolies. Many critics of the results of privatization/industry restructuring efforts in the United Kingdom point to the fact that too much of the generating capacity was held by very few producers, allowing those companies to manipulate prices

In efficiently functioning competitive markets, producers are no longer "price givers," who can set prices to recover costs and, in the case of investor-owned entities, earn an assured rate of return. Producers must accept the prices set by the interplay of supply and demand, or choose not to operate. Those prices will trend toward the marginal operating cost of the most expensive unit to operate in a given time period. From the standpoint of economic efficiency, this is what society wants to see. Consumers get to trade-off the benefit they derive from their marginal unit of consumption against the producer's cost of supplying that marginal unit.

It is also important to recognize that electricity is not a homogenous product. There are many other products associated with the sale of electricity, such as load following capability and reserves. There may be many sellers of some services, but too few for others. Similarly, the market may have many sellers generally, but transmission constraints can limit market entry in some areas. The problem is just as severe if there are many sellers, but a few dominate the market due to their size or other advantages.

Market Access

For a market to function efficiently, suppliers must have access to the market; suppliers must be able to deliver products to consumers. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission mandated open, nondiscriminatory, electricity transmission access and functional unbundling, it intended to put this market principle in place by assuring suppliers equal access to potential wholesale customers. The intent of functional unbundling is to separate the generation and transmission functions within a utility's organization to minimize the opportunity or temptation to use control of transmission to the advantage of one's own generation.

Functional unbundling and open access tariffs might provide nondiscriminatory market access. Open access tariffs require an owner of transmission to provide access to others under terms and conditions comparable to those the owner applies to itself. However, leaving generation and transmission under the umbrella of a single organization runs the risk of that organization using its transmission branch to benefit its own generation. It may be very difficult, moreover, for regulators or competitors to demonstrate that anti-competitive behavior actually took place. Many utilities in the Northwest have expressed concern, for example, that Bonneville, which owns so much of the region's high-voltage transmission system, could exercise subtle restraint on transmission access, to benefit its own generating resources.

There are at least three preventative steps beyond those described above that might be taken. Each offers increased certainty that nondiscriminatory open access will be achieved, but each is increasingly complex. The first step is to spin off generation or transmission to an affiliate. While this further separates the two functions, it does not guarantee that transmission decisions would not be influenced by the interests of the generating affiliate.

The second step is to vest decisions over transmission operation in an independent operator with no financial interest in generation. Ownership in the transmission system would not necessarily change hands, only responsibility for operation of the system would change. Many restructuring proposals being considered across the country feature an independent grid operator who would run the transmission systems of multiple owners as a single system. An independent grid operator may offer some operational efficiencies, as well. The independent grid operator could also be responsible for transmission system expansion decisions.

The third, and most certain, but also most difficult step is divestiture, i.e., selling off the generation or transmission assets. Divestiture is certain because the new owner of the transmission would have no interest in generation. It is most difficult because of the legal and financial transactions involved in divestiture. What are the assets worth? How are the proceeds to be allocated? How will the transaction be taxed? These and a host of other issues complicate divestiture, but do not make it impossible. While these difficulties are complex, this alternative would result in a lower ongoing regulatory burden than that associated with continued common ownership of generation and transmission. [Zeigler, Belton, "Affiliate Transactions and Electric Industry Restructuring," The Electricity Journal, October 1995, pp. 20-27.]

Consumer Choice

Consumer choice is the ability of consumers to choose among different products and different suppliers. Choice is a basic requirement for efficient competitive markets in that it is a corollary of having many suppliers with open, nondiscriminatory market access. Consumer choice drives competitive markets. In the case of wholesale competition, it is the ability of wholesale customers to choose among suppliers. In the case of retail competition, it is the ability of retail consumers to choose their supplier directly. In either case, it is consumer choice that forces suppliers to bring down their costs and make innovations in their products and services. Without consumer choice, regulation is needed to substitute for the discipline of the market and protect consumers from the abuse of monopoly power.

Separation of Regulated and Unregulated Activities

If a supplier were able to subsidize its competitive position by shifting costs to its regulated activities, it would unfairly gain market power. For example, there is a consistent complaint from the Bonneville Power Administration that its investor-owned competitors are able to recover the fixed costs of their resources from their regulated retail business and compete for Bonneville's wholesale customers on the basis of variable operating costs alone. Whether this is entirely true is not known, but it does illustrate the concern.

A second concern arising from the mix of regulated and unregulated functions is that the regulated function will take second place in the internal competition for scarce capital resources. Given the choice between investing scarce capital in an unregulated business that can earn an unregulated rate of return and investing it where it can only earn a regulated return, most businesses will be drawn to the higher return. If that is true, the consequence could be that investment needed to ensure the reliability and efficiency of transmission or distribution will go begging. In the telecommunications industry, which is further along in the deregulatory process, recent experience has raised concerns about the quality of local phone service, the part of the business that remains a regulated monopoly.

There are arguments to be made in favor of continued vertical integration of regulated and unregulated activities. In addition to the transaction costs involved in divesting, there is the possibility that the increased transaction costs between the now-separated portions of the business, (e.g., the need to contract for transmission services) could outweigh the competitive benefits achieved by limiting the market power associated with vertical integration. [Kaserman, David L. And John W. Mayo, "The Measurement of Vertical Economies and the Efficient Structure of the Electric Utility Business," The Journal of Industrial Economics, V XXXIX, N. 5, September 1991, pp. 483-502.] However, the principle of minimizing market power is, in the opinions of many people, so important that the burden of proof should rest with those opposing divestiture.

Consistent Rules

Relative market power can also be affected if different competitors are subject to different ground rules. For example, different regulatory regimes, different tax liabilities, different costs of capital and other factors can affect relative competitiveness. The Northwest, with its mix of federal, investor-owned, and local publicly owned entities, has significant potential for these kinds of market distortions.

3-C. Characteristics of Competitive Markets

Although perhaps not as fundamental as the principles discussed above, there are also some characteristics of competitive markets that should be kept in mind in the course of any restructuring process.

Risk and Reward

Competitive markets imply the possibility of business failure and capital loss. A positive return on capital investment can only be guaranteed by substantial market power (historically, monopoly power for utilities). In the regulated monopoly environment, investors trade low risk (the relatively assured recovery of capital investment from franchise customers) for relatively low regulated rates of return. In the competitive environment, investors have no assurance that costs can be recovered. Competitive markets, however, also imply the possibility of success and profit. Investors take on risk in return for the possibility of a higher, unregulated rate of return.

The structure, rules and institutions of a competitive electricity market have to accommodate the possibility of both market success and market failure. Is there the ability to absorb loss? If there is a "profit," how and to whom is it to be distributed? The answers to these questions are fairly clear for investor-owned utilities. Stockholders should realize that their stock might go up or down. The issue is potentially most difficult for the publicly owned part of the industry – Bonneville and the consumer-owned utilities that don't have stockholders to take profits and losses.

Markets are Dynamic

It is tempting to think we know the conditions competition will bring and that if we can adjust the existing legal and regulatory system to fit those conditions, everything will be fine. In reality, however, we can't know what future conditions will be. The interplay of markets and technological advances can stimulate changes that alter the competitive landscape. For example, continued improvements in the cost and performance of small-scale generation and energy storage could result in a very different picture of the competitive future than the one that seems likely today. On the other hand, unforeseen resource constraints or environmental restrictions could turn the market in entirely different directions. In considering the restructuring of the industry it is important to put in place structures and systems that are consistent with the overall principles of competitive markets, not the specifics of the electricity market as we foresee it today.

3-D. Limitations of Competitive Markets

Competitive markets are not without limitations. These limitations also have to be kept in mind as restructuring is considered.

Markets are Rarely Perfect

Markets do a wonderful job of allocating society's resources when all relevant costs are reflected in prices and when market barriers are minimal. However, there frequently are environmental costs that are external to the market process. For example, the health and environmental costs of sulfur dioxide pollution were external to the power industry until federal emissions standards and caps were established.

In addition, customers often lack complete knowledge of their alternatives. Poor information about the cost, performance and reliability of some conservation measures, for example, makes it difficult for them to compete against better understood resources. Some firms also might have a degree of market power in some part of their customer base.

These are imperfections that are not resolved now and can never be resolved fully. They exist to various degrees in most markets. It would be erroneous to assume that by moving from a regulatory environment to a market environment, all misallocations of resources would be eliminated. The move to competitive markets requires continued attention to issues of market externalities and other market imperfections.

Efficiency Not Equity

Markets, even when they perform well, are about efficiency, not equity. There may be societal goals, such as addressing low-income consumers, providing rate relief to groups or areas that would otherwise experience higher costs, or providing stimulus to a socially desired economic activity that may not be met by the competitive market. These can be entirely legitimate policy goals.

This region, and in particular, the Bonneville Power Administration, has frequently used power system revenues or rates to support these kinds of goals, including reducing irrigation and river transportation costs. This type of implicit subsidy was possible in a regulated monopoly. Competitive markets, however, cannot sustain cross-subsidies. One customer's subsidy is potentially another customer's greater-than-market price. With choices among alternative suppliers, a customer will usually find a way to undercut such prices.

This does not mean that revenues from the power system cannot be used to address non-market purposes. If, for example, the Bonneville Power Administration is allowed to charge market prices, and those prices exceed costs, the net revenues can be used for whatever purposes are deemed appropriate – a rebate to customers, low-income services or other purposes. But delivering the dividend in the form of subsidized prices puts the subsidizer at a competitive disadvantage and sends an inefficient price signal as well.

3-E. The Transition Matters

The transition to competitive markets will be neither instantaneous nor easy. Much of the difficulty of the transition has to do with reconciling the consequences of past decisions, made in an era of regulated monopolies, with the new competitive market. Competition has much to offer in the form of lower costs and better products and services. However, it will be difficult to make the transition if some groups – investors or customer groups – believe they would be made worse off because of competition. In addition, the timing of the transition for various customer groups will be important. For example, with an unstructured transition, large industrial customers will likely gain access to lower market prices sooner than individual residential customers.

The debate about this transition has focused primarily on the issue of stranded investment. Stranded investment is investment that cannot be fully recovered at competitive market prices. Most, but possibly not all, of that investment is in generating resources. If some customers can purchase electricity from the competitive market, instead of from their historic supplier, they may "strand" their "share" of the unrecoverable portion of the utility's investment, leaving it with those customers who don't have access to alternative suppliers, with the utility's investors or both.

Stranded investment could occur at the wholesale level, as a result of open transmission access, or at the retail level as a result of opening up retail competition. Even without actual retail wheeling, the special accommodations that are likely to be made for large customers who can threaten to leave the system can effectively strand costs on customers with less market power.

The stranded investment issue tends to generate a great deal of heat and not very much light. Customers who think they can take advantage of the competitive market brand suggestions for some kind of stranded cost recovery as "anti-competitive." Customers who believe they will have less ability to take advantage of the market fear they will have to pay an unfair share of stranded investments. Utility stockholders, arguing that investments were made in good faith expectation of continued utility monopoly and obligation to serve, see failure to provide for stranded investment recovery as unfair to them.

The challenge is to get beyond these polarized positions to a competitive market. Some observations that may help move the debate:

  • The amount of potentially stranded generation investment depends on the difference between the cost of existing generation and the market price. In the Northwest, the amount of stranded generation investment is presently thought to be small relative to other parts of the country.
  • The amount of stranded investment cannot be figured on an individual resource basis, but rather on the basis of an owner's entire system. Where utilities have been averaging the cost of their high-cost and low-cost resources in determining their regulated rates, stranded investment must be determined on the same basis. One cannot just pick out the high-cost resources and recover stranded investment for those resources, while at the same time receiving market prices for (and making windfall profits from) existing low-cost resources.
  • Any stranded investment recovery mechanism should build in incentives to minimize stranded investments. For example, if owners must share in the stranded investment, there is an incentive to work hard to minimize stranded investments. Similarly, stranded investment recovery should not reward inefficient operation. Recovering fixed costs is necessary to some degree. Subsidizing above-market operating costs is neither prudent nor necessary.
  • It is difficult to make an argument that all stranded investments should be recovered from customers (although that is what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has recommended for wholesale stranded investments). [Bradford, Peter, "A Regulatory Compact Worthy of the Name," The Electricity Journal, November 1995, pp 12-15.] The decisions made in a regulated monopoly environment were perceived to have relatively low risk, but certainly not zero risk. Stranded investment recovery should be shared between customers and investors. The fact that Bonneville does not have investors in the usual sense makes this more difficult, but not necessarily impossible.
  • Virtually every electricity industry restructuring process in this country has recommended some level of stranded investment recovery. It is the norm, not the exception.

It should also be recognized that there is a flip side to stranded investment. Stranded investment occurs when total costs are greater than market prices. But for many utilities in this region, existing system costs are well below market prices or could be in a few years. The transition to competitive markets and market prices means that unless some provision is made for existing customers to share in the return, the benefits will all go to investors – a windfall profit. Stranded investment recovery is based on the principle of equity. Investors who received a near-certain, but low rate of return in the regulated environment may be entitled to some level of stranded investment recovery. If existing customers are also to be treated equitably, they are also entitled to some share of the windfall profits. They, after all, helped pay for the below-market resources and accepted the risks associated with those resources. [Cearley, Reed and Lance McKinzie, "The Economics of Stranded Investment — a Two-Way Street," The Electricity Journal, November 1995, pp. 16-23.]

^ top

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

The Northwest's electric power industry is constantly evolving. That is nothing new. However, the pace of that evolution is new – a pace many believe is more rapid than at any time in memory. What has been a regulated monopoly, is increasingly becoming a competitive market. The three interacting factors driving change in the electric utility industry are:

  • Wholesale electricity markets have become competitive due to regulatory changes that opened the industry to new players. This opening of the wholesale market, combined with lower overall prices for new sources of electricity, has resulted in significant pressure to open retail markets to competition as well.
  • The availability of adequate supplies of low-cost natural gas has driven down the marginal cost of new generating resources. In addition, low gas prices have made it economical to operate at very low costs older gas-fired generating plants already in the West Coast system. This has created an abundance of low-cost electricity in the West.
  • Finally, gas turbine technology has improved, resulting in a low-cost, efficient resource that can be built quickly and in relatively small increments to meet growing loads. This has significantly lowered the barriers to entering the power generation business, thus contributing to increased competition.

2-A. Competition in Electricity Markets

Probably no change is more important to the electricity industry and, by inference, to this draft power plan and the goals of the Northwest Power Act, than the evolution toward open competition among electricity producers and distributors. The principal benefits of opening an industry to the pressures of competition are to bring down prices and increase customer influence over the variety, quality and price of services the industry delivers. That has been the clear goal of the federal government's restructuring of both the natural gas and telecommunications industries. It is also the goal of restructuring in the electricity industry. A key lesson of restructuring in other industries is that how restructuring occurs and how regulation changes to accommodate increased competition are important.

The Traditional Regulatory Environment

The electric utility industry, until relatively recently, was made up of regulated monopolies – businesses that were, to a large extent, protected from competition. There was always some competition between electricity and competing fuels for such applications as heating and industrial processes, and even competition among electric utilities to attract new loads. But, historically, there was little competition from non-utility generators of electricity, and almost no one competed to sell electricity within a utility's service territory. The utility's franchise was protected.

The traditional regulatory environment reflected the realities of the industry as it existed years ago. It was an industry that required the construction of large, capital-intensive power plants and the rapid expansion of transmission and distribution systems. The regulatory system that evolved was a cost-based system that offered utilities the financial stability associated with a protected customer base. In return, utilities accepted an obligation to serve all customers in their service territory and regulation that prevents the exercise of monopoly power in the prices they charge. This regulatory framework generally holds true today for both the investor-owned utilities, which are regulated by state utility commissions, and the local public utilities, which are regulated by locally elected boards or commissions.

In the Pacific Northwest, the Bonneville Power Administration is a special case in that it is a federal marketer of wholesale power. Bonneville sells the electricity generated at federal Columbia River hydroelectric dams and one nuclear plant, the Washington Public Power Supply System's WNP-2, to retail utilities and to some industrial and government customers that are served directly rather than through utilities. The federal power marketer is required by law to sell to its public agency customers at cost. Because Bonneville markets the power generated at the federal Columbia River dams, those costs were, until recently, well below the cost of alternative power supplies. This meant Bonneville had a secure market for its inexpensive electricity. Furthermore, most of Bonneville's customers are "full requirements" customers, that is, Bonneville supplies all their power needs.

Regulatory Policy – Wholesale Competition

In 1978, the utility industry's near-monopoly on power generation began to crumble. Congress passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) to promote renewable resources and cogeneration and to reduce utility reliance on imported oil. PURPA created a class of non-utility generators that had the right to sell the output of their power plants to utilities at the price the utilities would have to pay to develop their own resources – their so-called "avoided cost." This was an attempt to mimic market-based economics, and it encouraged developers to compete to supply utility resources. While these provisions stimulated wholesale competition, the law was very specific in prohibiting these new producers from selling to retail customers.

The next major federal regulatory change occurred in the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct). This legislation created a class of wholesale generators that are exempt from the legal and financial requirements of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935. Exempt wholesale generators have the ability to structure themselves any way they want, although they are still subject to rate-regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when they sell their power in interstate commerce. The 1992 Act further eased entry into the wholesale generation business, but prohibited these exempt generators from making sales to retail customers.

The drafters of the 1992 legislation recognized that transmission access was a necessary condition for a fully competitive wholesale power market. If there is to be true competition in generation, generators need to have a way of getting their power to market under terms and conditions that do not discriminate among the owners of generating resources. EPAct gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the ability to require owners of transmission systems to provide access to others wishing to use the transmission system. Again, the legislation was clear that it was addressing transmission access for wholesale transactions only, and that the Commission did not have the authority to require wheeling to retail customers.

In March 1995, the Commission released what has come to be known as the electricity "mega-NOPR" – its notice of proposed rulemaking implementing the open access provisions of EPAct. Although the rules are not yet final, they give a relatively clear picture of the Commission's intent. They require utilities under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction owning both generation and transmission to "unbundle" these functions – separating decisions about generation and transmission within the corporate structure and charging separately for these products.

The utilities are also to adopt transmission tariffs that guarantee "comparability," i.e., charges, terms and conditions for transmission services that are comparable to what the utility applies to itself for these services. The intent is to frustrate the ability of transmission owners to use their transmission to give their own resources an advantage.

The anticipated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules will also require establishment of sophisticated information networks that can provide real-time information on the availability and price of transmission capacity. Some industry observers have suggested that functional unbundling and requirements for comparability will not be sufficient to ensure non-discriminatory open transmission access, and that pressure will build for utilities to divest themselves of their transmission assets.

Opening access to the transmission system fosters the need for coordination in the planning and operation of regional transmission grids. The Commission has proposed the formation of regional transmission groups, composed of the users, suppliers and the state regulators of transmission in given regions, to coordinate the planning, expansion and operation of transmission capacity. Many utilities in the Northwest are members of the Western Regional Transmission Association (WRTA) and the Northwest Regional Transmission Association (NRTA).

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also indicated its intent to address what it perceives to be a transition issue that will have to be resolved – the so-called "stranded investment" problem. Wholesale stranded investments are those that were made to serve wholesale customers who then take advantage of open transmission access to get service from another supplier. If the investing utility cannot recover its investment from its remaining sales, that investment will be stranded.

There are few examples of potential wholesale stranded investments in the Pacific Northwest. One example could be the investment in the Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear power plants, two of which are uncompleted and have never produced power, and another that is operating, but which produces electricity at above the current market price. Fiscal Year 1995 operating costs of the Supply System's WNP-2 were about 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, which are higher than the cost of power from new gas-fired combustion turbines, and much higher than current wholesale power prices. The Supply System has set ambitious targets for reducing operating costs. It remains to be seen how successful they will be.

The financing of these plants was backed by the Bonneville Power Administration to meet what was then perceived to be the need for new resources to serve public agency and direct service customers. The capital costs of these plants were melded with Bonneville's low-cost hydropower, causing rates to climb by about 500 percent. Even so, until the advent of competitive pressures, Bonneville could recover its costs, and until recently, keep its rates below the avoided cost of new resources. However, Bonneville's ability to recover those costs fully in today's low-cost wholesale market and fully carry out its other public responsibilities is far from clear.

The changes in the wholesale market brought about by the forces described above have been dramatic. Independent power producers have become the important developers of new generation. More than 100 power marketers have been licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These marketers may not own any generating resources, but they can purchase supplies from a number of producers and put together packages of power products to meet the needs of their customers.

An active spot market has evolved, with spot prices at COB/NOB (the reference point for West Coast power transactions at the California/Oregon border and the Nevada/Oregon border) published daily in The Wall Street Journal. Some utilities have established power trading floors, and the New York Mercantile Exchange is moving toward establishing a futures market for electricity.

The most compelling effect of the competitive changes in the utility industry is that the market price of electricity has fallen. There is clear evidence from the results of various competitive bidding processes that competition among potential developers and marketers has driven down prices. To some extent, this is the consequence of surplus capacity on the West Coast that can be priced at the operating cost plus a small markup. In the past, that surplus capacity might not have entered the market because it was too expensive. Low gas prices and open transmission access are making that capacity a major factor in today's wholesale power market. Many of these developments parallel the experience in the restructured natural gas market.

The development of the wholesale electricity market has been particularly problematic for Bonneville. Because it is exclusively a wholesale utility, it is fully exposed to wholesale competition. Its heavy debt burden for nuclear plants, high operating costs on the one operating nuclear plant and increased costs of salmon recovery efforts are colliding with the falling prices in the wholesale market. The result is that many of Bonneville's direct service industrial and public agency customers are seeking or have obtained power from other suppliers.

In its 1996 Initial Rate Proposal, Bonneville appears to have been successful in putting together a competitive five-year rate proposal. To do so required extensive cost-cutting efforts and efforts to pare back or eliminate some of its other responsibilities. To many, the apparent conflict between Bonneville's public agency responsibilities and the requirements of the competitive market raise questions about Bonneville's continued existence in its historic form. This is discussed more fully in Chapter 7.

Retail Competition

The availability of low-cost power in the wholesale power market is creating pressure for retail competition, i.e., a situation in which individual factories, businesses and even homes might choose who generates their electricity and what power products they buy. Electricity would be distributed to consumers over the same power lines as serve them today, but one consumer might be served by one utility, while his or her neighbor might be served by a different utility, an independent power producer or a marketer. Many believe that the full benefits of a competitive industry will only be realized when retail customers have full access to power markets.

The authority to allow retail competition lies with state and local regulators – legislatures, state utility commissions and the governing bodies of consumer-owned utilities. Not surprisingly, the pressure for retail competition is greatest where retail rates are highest. California embarked on an ambitious effort to restructure its electricity industry to allow retail access first to large customers and then to all customers within a few years. Although not yet complete, it appears almost certain that some form of retail competition will come about in that state.

California is the most ambitious example of competitive restructuring, but there are other states in which retail competition is also being actively considered. Michigan has an experiment in retail wheeling under way. Massachusetts has recently adopted a goal of providing retail customers with the choice of suppliers. The state also adopted principles for the restructured industry and for the transition to it, and has set a schedule for implementation, as has Wisconsin. Rhode Island also has adopted a set of principles for industry restructuring.

While these examples are perhaps the most prominent, regulatory commissions and legislatures across the country are beginning to address the issue, even in areas that do not have particularly high rates. At least 12 states outside the Northwest are investigating the introduction of retail competition.

Given the relatively low electricity rates in the Northwest, this region would seem an unlikely place for pressures for retail access, but even small reductions in price for large customers can translate into significant monetary savings. As a result, some industrial customers in the Northwest are using their market power to obtain the benefits of low wholesale prices. These relatively few large customers are causing much of the electricity industry, even in the Northwest, to act as if retail access were a given.

Puget Sound Power and Light in Washington has customers that have been granted revised rate structures as a result of their attempt to get direct access to the power market through other suppliers. A major customer of Seattle City Light also has sought direct access to the power market. While these are the most public examples, it is likely there are numerous other instances in the region in which utilities and their customers are wrestling with the trade-offs between opening up retail access or making special rate accommodations to retain major customers. Two state utility commissions, Washington's and Montana's, have undertaken inquiries on competition, and the Washington commission has published "Guiding Principles for an Evolving Electricity Industry." [ Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, "Guiding Principles for an Evolving Electricity Industry," Docket No. UE-940932, December 13, 1991.]

The effects of anticipation of competition are also evident. Utility efforts to "right-size" and cut costs are prevalent. Mergers and acquisitions are under way in the region and across the country, as utilities try to reduce costs through economies of scale and otherwise achieve competitive advantages. At least two major Northwest utilities have been public in expressing their concerns that they would face stranded investments if retail competition develops. Most utilities have expressed concerns about regulatory pressures to undertake conservation, renewable resource development and accommodation of environmental concerns that might raise their rates if their potential competitors – independent power producers, marketers and so on – are not subject to such pressures. They fear such rate increases will mean customers move to other suppliers.

2-B. Restructuring of the Natural Gas Industry

Changes in the natural gas market have been a major factor in the competitive evolution of the electricity industry. In fact, changes in the gas industry may have far more implications for the future of the electricity industry than any other recent development. Not only do low natural gas prices affect future demand for electricity and the cost and characteristics of electricity supply, but the development of a restructured natural gas commodity market may foreshadow similar changes for the electricity market.

In the early 1970s, natural gas was regulated from the wellhead to the end user. Consumers' gas needs were met by their local distribution company, much as electric utilities serve their customers' needs now. The local distribution company had its gas supplies delivered to the city gate by natural gas pipeline companies that acquired the gas supply, transported it to the city gate, and shaped it to meet demand.

Today, pipeline companies do not own or purchase any gas. They provide transportation and shaping services on an unbundled basis. Local distribution companies and many individual customers now purchase their own gas supplies, transportation, and other services as needed. There is now a fully developed natural gas commodity market. Financial instruments, such as natural gas futures, allow local distribution companies and customers to manage the risk of natural gas price fluctuations. A whole new industry of natural gas marketers now exists to help customers acquire gas supplies, transportation and other services on a bundled or separate basis to fit individual customer needs.

These dramatic changes occurred through a series of restructuring initiatives beginning with the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and culminating in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 636 in April 1992. (See Figure 2-1.) The regulatory changes gradually deregulated natural gas prices at the wellhead (Natural Gas Policy Act, 1978 and Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act, 1989), opened up pipelines for use by anyone wanting to transport gas (FERC Order 436, 1985 and Order 500, 1987), and eliminated the purchase and sale of natural gas by pipeline companies (FERC Order 636, 1992). Order 636 also put into place pricing principles that provided incentives to utilize pipeline capacity more efficiently.

In April 1990, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) began trading natural gas futures contracts, signaling the beginning of a complete natural gas commodity market. Finally, legislated restrictions on the use of natural gas for electricity generation contained in the Powerplant and Industrial Fuels Use Act were repealed.

Taken together, these changes have put into place the necessary elements for an economically efficient natural gas market. These elements include direct access to markets by both users and suppliers, a larger number of buyers and sellers participating in the market, proper pricing structures in the regulated portions of the industry, and price discovery and risk mitigation mechanisms provided by the spot and futures markets for the natural gas commodity.

The results have been dramatic decreases in natural gas prices and growing estimates of natural gas supply. Between 1983 and 1987, average wellhead real natural gas prices in the United States fell from $3.70 to $2.08 (both in January 1995 dollars), a drop of 44 percent. Since 1987, natural gas prices have averaged $1.89, while displaying price cycles that typify a competitive commodity market. Figure 2-1 illustrates natural gas price trends and restructuring actions over the past 24 years.

Figure 2-1. Restructuring benchmarks and natural gas prices

Until very recently, these lower price levels were considered unsustainable. Such low prices were not expected to garner sufficient new supplies of gas to meet growing demands. However, the establishment of a more competitive market has led to adoption of new technologies that have greatly increased the success, and reduced the cost, of natural gas exploration and development. In only 10 years, the estimates of ultimate potential gas resources have increased five fold. [For an excellent discussion of the changing views on oil and gas supplies see, William L. Fisher, "How Technology has Confounded U. S. Gas Resource Estimators," Oil and Gas Journal , Oct. 24, 1994, pp. 100-107.]

The theories and models of natural gas supply that were developed during the energy crisis of the 1970s and early 1980s have proven to be far too pessimistic. As a new understanding of the nature of natural gas supplies and markets is being developed, forecasts of future natural gas prices have been falling every year for the last dozen years. It is no longer conventional wisdom that natural resource prices will necessarily rise in real terms over time as those resources are produced. This change is reflected in the Council's forecasts of natural gas prices, described in Chapter 5.

Lower gas prices have meant that gas-fired steam generating plants, primarily used by California utilities to meet peaking needs, can now be run economically with gas. These existing generators are already available, they simply have not been used extensively in the past due to the high price of their fuel. The availability of low-cost gas for these plants has meant that the West Coast market has a significant amount of inexpensive electricity at its disposal right now. The extent of that market is described in Chapter 5.

2-C. Gas Turbine Technology

Changes in the structure of the gas industry coincided with improvements in gas-fired power plants. Gas turbine technology has benefited from military and aerospace research and development. This has resulted in improved efficiency and reliability. New gas-fired power plants also are smaller than conventional thermal power plants, so more of their components can be assembled in factories. This makes their onsite construction faster. These two effects combine to reduce their overall costs. In addition, natural gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbines have greatly reduced local and global environmental impacts. Consequently, they are easier to permit and require less permitting lead time. The dramatic benefits of today's low-cost gas-fired generation and the key characteristics of a gasified coal plant, as described in the 1991 Power Plan, are compared in Table 2-1.

In addition to the direct effect of providing electricity that is inexpensive and less-polluting, the characteristics of gas-fired combustion turbines have also lowered the barriers for entry into the power generation business. It is no longer necessary to undertake the risks associated with very large, long lead time, capital-intensive generating resources to enter the generation business. Thus, one of the conditions for a competitive generation market – ease of market entry – is within reach.

Table 2-1. Marginal Resource Comparison: Draft Plan Compared to 1991 Power Plan

Resource Characteristics 1991 Plan
Gasified Coal		 Draft Plan
Gas-Fired Turbine		 Change
Size (MW Capacity of Typical Plant) 420 228 46% Smaller
Lead Time (years) 7 4 43% Shorter
Capital Cost ($/kW) $2,520 $684 73% Lower
Availability (%) 80 92 15% Greater
Efficiency (%) 36 47 30% Greater
Levelized Cost (cents/kwh) 6 3 50% Lower
Particulates (T/GWh) 0.07 0.03 57% Less
SO 2 (T/GWh) 0.04 0.02 50% Less
NO X (T/GWh) 0.50 0.07 85% Less
CO (T/GWh) 0.02 0.02 similar
CO 2 (T/GWh) 985 497 50% Less

^ top

Fourth Power Plan

posted Apr 16, 2013

The electricity industry in the United States is in the midst of significant restructuring. This transformation will move the industry from the regulated monopoly structure of the past 50 years to a more competitive model.

There is much to be gained in this transition. Electricity consumers are already benefiting from competition in a number of significant ways. Competition in the natural gas industry has helped lower the cost of electricity from gas-fired generating plants. Competition among manufacturers and developers of combustion turbines has contributed to less expensive, more efficient, shorter lead time power plants. Broad competition in the electricity industry could result in lower prices for consumers and more choices about the sources, variety and quality of their electrical service. This is good news. The opportunities are great.

But, there are also risks inherent in the transition to more competitive electricity services. Merely declaring that a market is competitive will not necessarily achieve the full benefits of competition or ensure that they will be broadly shared. It is entirely possible to have deregulation without true competition. How competition is structured is important.

It is also important to recognize the limitations of competition. Competitive markets are about efficiency, not fairness or other social goals. To the extent that the citizens of the Northwest want their electricity system to deliver certain social benefits, such as low-cost electricity to rural areas or fish and wildlife recovery, special attention will be required to accomplish those goals during and after the industry's transition.

Similarly, markets are never perfect. For example, prices rarely reflect the environmental consequences of resource development and operation. Inadequate information and related market barriers also inhibit the market for energy efficiency. Again, if the citizens of the Northwest value environmental quality and energy efficiency, special care will be required to ensure that these values are upheld while the region captures the benefits of a more competitive electricity industry.

To seize the opportunities and moderate the risks inherent in the transition to competitive electricity markets, the governors of the four Northwest states convened a "Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System." The governors appointed a broadly representative steering committee to study that system and make recommendations about its transformation. Each governor has also appointed a representative to make certain the public is educated about and involved in the Comprehensive Review.

In establishing the review, the governors stated:

"The goal of this review is to develop, through a public process, recommendations for changes in the institutional structure of the region's electric utility industry. These changes should be designed to protect the region's natural resources and distribute equitably the costs and benefits of a more competitive marketplace, while at the same time assuring the region of an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power system."

This is not the first time the Northwest states and stakeholders within the region have come together to address the future of the region's power system and related issues critical to the economy and environment of the Northwest. For more than 15 years, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington have worked cooperatively to protect the resources of the Columbia River Basin, which is the source of the region's vast hydroelectric system and its largest and most complex ecosystem.

Through the Northwest Power Act of 1980, these states formed a compact and established the Northwest Power Planning Council to help plan for the future of the power system, and inform and involve citizens of the region in the planning process. Congress and the four Northwest states identified and embraced a set of long-term goals in the Power Act:

  • To achieve cost-effective conservation;
  • To encourage the development of renewable energy resources;
  • To establish a representative regional power planning process; and
  • To assure the region of an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply.

Since the creation of the Council, utilities, businesses, local governments and others in the region have saved more than 1,200 average megawatts of electricity, enough to power a city the size of Seattle. These savings cost utilities an average of 2 cents to 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. that's about half the cost of power from the lowest-cost new generating resources available at the time. The environmental benefits of foregoing new generating resources in favor of conservation have not been calculated, but it is likely that they are substantial.

The four states, utilities, local governments, businesses and citizens have also worked together to promote wind and geothermal demonstration power plants, which are now in various stages of development. These are accomplishments of which the Northwest can be proud. No other region in the nation has worked so successfully as a team to manage so vast and complex a resource as the Northwest power system.

The goals of the Northwest Power Act were the product of a different era, an era of regulated monopoly utilities and large, capital-intensive resources. Nonetheless, many of these goals are still relevant in the increasingly competitive utility world. The industry transformation could challenge or help further those goals, depending on how the transformation is structured and how successful the region is in fashioning mechanisms to achieve those goals.

The Fourth Northwest Power Plan

This Draft Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan was begun as fulfillment of the Power Act mandate to prepare and adopt "a regional conservation and electric power plan" and review that plan at least every five years. The Council's last plan was adopted in 1991.

The timing of this draft plan, in light of the governor's review, requires a different approach than that taken in previous Council power plans. Consequently, this draft contains few recommended actions or policy decisions. It is instead a reference tool, containing background on the industry and its current restructuring, as well as analysis of some of the major issues that must be addressed as the Northwest advances toward its new energy future. Because the Bonneville Power Administration, which markets about half the electricity generated in the Northwest, and the Council itself will be profoundly affected by the transformation of the industry, issues related to their futures are also explored.

The goal of this draft plan mirrors and supports the governors? goal in setting in motion the Comprehensive Review. The key issues and findings are summarized in the following pages.

The Evolving Northwest Electricity Industry

The electricity industry in the Northwest is evolving rapidly in the direction of increased competition. This trend is the product of the interaction of a number of developments. Prices for natural gas have fallen dramatically. And the technology of gas-fired electricity generation has been advanced to the degree that new combined-cycle gas power plants are relatively low-cost, flexible resources. These changes have broken down the financial barriers that once blocked entry into the electricity generation business.

These forces have been amplified by important policy changes at federal and state levels. Federal policies encouraging competition in generation began with the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA) and have been advanced by the National Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is in the process of adopting new rules to ensure competitive wholesale power markets. Progress toward competition at the retail level has been left to the states to determine and shape. In many states, the prospect of lower-cost power is driving consumers of large amounts of electricity to seek access to the competitive market or at least to market prices.

While rates in the Northwest are generally lower than elsewhere in the country, the pressure for retail competition is evident here as well. The Bonneville Power Administration, which markets electricity from the federal power system, is a power wholesaler and, as such, is already fully exposed to competition. Bonneville's size and importance in the regional power system mean that wholesale competition will have dramatic effects in the Pacific Northwest regardless of actions at the retail level. This plan reviews the evolution toward increased competition and the forces driving it in Chapter 2.

Capturing the Benefits of Competition

Competition in the electricity industry has been promoted because it is considered to be more effective than regulation in fostering improved productivity, greater innovation, increased choice and lower costs to consumers. However, while the Pacific Northwest could benefit greatly from more open competition in the utility industry, the region shouldn't assume that deregulation alone will ensure these benefits. Without a market structure that fosters effective competition, the industry could simply replace regulated monopolies with deregulated oligopolies -- where a few large companies have near-monopoly power.

There are generally recognized conditions that need to be met to foster effective competition. For example, an effective market requires an adequate number of sellers, and market access by buyers and sellers to ensure that no individual has the power to influence prices in the market. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is pursuing policies intended to satisfy these conditions at least partially, by expanding access to electricity markets through transmission systems.

An effective market also requires that sellers cannot subsidize their competitive position by shifting costs to customers in a monopoly part of their business. This condition could be met by separating companies into their competitive and monopoly components.

Even if effective competition is achieved in the utility industry, market imperfections and other barriers could keep the industry from functioning efficiently. For example, if environmental costs and benefits are not taken into account, the utility industry will fall short of environmental goals. Other market barriers can limit the amount of energy conservation that is secured. Consequently, continued attention to market imperfections may still be required even in competitive markets.

There are also some things that competitive markets simply can't do. In the Northwest, for example the utility system supports social goals, such as economic development in remote rural areas or promotion of irrigated agriculture, generally by offering lower rates for these purposes. In a competitive electricity market, it may be difficult to include the costs of providing low rates to some in the prices charged to others. If supporting such social goals is to continue, new avenues and sources for the support may need to be identified.

Finally, how the transition from the regulated utility industry to a more competitive market is structured is critical. The transition requires reconciling decisions and actions made in the regulated environment with the new realities of competition.

Stranded investment -- the inability to recover the full costs of past utility decisions at current market prices -- is the most contentious issue in this area. While stranded investment in this region is small compared to other regions, it may still be an issue. Where legitimate stranded costs exist, the allocation of those costs between utility stockholders and utility customers will need to be negotiated.

For some Northwest utilities with existing low-cost resources, the ability to charge market prices could lead to windfall profits. These gains also need to be divided between investors and consumers. The Council offers some guiding principles and cautions for a competitive electricity industry in Chapter 3.

The Existing Northwest Power System

The foundation for the transition to more competitive electricity markets is the existing regional power system. This system is still dominated by hydroelectric power. Today, hydropower accounts for about 66 percent of the region's annual electricity supply. Since the Council's 1991 Power Plan, the region added 2,470 average megawatts of generating resources and conservation. Natural gas accounted for 57 percent of these additions, while conservation made up 21 percent of the new resources. Renewable resources, largely small hydropower and some biomass, accounted for about 17 percent of the additions. The preponderance of natural gas-fired resources in the recent additions to the system has raised concerns, but overall, the power system today embodies more resource diversity than did the system of 1991.

During the same period, the region also lost some electricity resources. The closure of the Trojan nuclear plant decreased energy supplies by about 725 average megawatts.

In addition, changes in how the hydropower system is operated, designed to protect endangered salmon and other fish and wildlife, have reduced the annual firm energy capability and limited the flexibility of the system to meet seasonal and hourly variations in electricity loads. The fish and wildlife protections reduced the firm energy capability of the region's hydroelectric system by about 850 average megawatts. The availability of low-cost electricity from the Southwest has helped the region offset the loss of energy from the increased flows for fish. This draft plan devotes Chapter 4 to a description of existing regional energy resources.

Forecasts and Resource Trends

The opportunities and risks inherent in the transition to a more competitive Northwest electricity industry must be analyzed in the context of certain key factors. These include: future electricity use, the price and availability of natural gas, the amount of and cost of electricity in the West Coast power market, the availability and cost of new resources, and uncertainties regarding the Northwest hydroelectric system.

In the midst of the changes in the electricity industry, growth of the region's economy and the reliance of that economy on affordable and reliable electricity continue. Because future economic growth and electricity requirements are inherently uncertain, the Council prepares a range of economic and demand forecasts rather than a single point prediction. The mid-range of that forecast anticipates electricity use will grow by 1.3 percent per year, or approximately 280 average megawatts annually. This figure reflects an expectation that the region will experience relatively stable and even slightly declining electricity prices in real dollar terms as a result of lower gas prices and transactions on the West Coast power market.

Future gas prices are a major factor in the demand for electricity and the cost of the options to supply that demand. The emergence of a competitive natural gas market has resulted in declining prices and the expectation of ample supplies at comparatively low prices for the future. Again, because future gas prices are uncertain, the Council prepares a range of forecasts intended to encompass that uncertainty. The mid-range forecast suggests a real growth rate of 0.4 percent per year for residential and commercial gas prices, 1.1 percent for industrial use and 1.6 percent for electric generation. The lower end of the forecast range reflects expectations that future gas prices may be constant in real terms or even decline slightly.

Falling natural gas prices, the opening of transmission access and the availability of substantial excess generating capacity in California and the Southwest have combined to create a vigorous West Coast market for electricity. The availability of relatively low-cost power in this market makes it an attractive alternative to the Northwest's meeting demand growth entirely with the construction of new resources.

The Council's analysis finds that the West Coast market is likely to have substantial supplies of electricity costing around 2 cents per kilowatt-hour well into the next decade. Taking into account transmission constraints, if the Northwest were to rely on that market for as much as 3,000 annual average megawatts, the future cost of electricity to the region could be reduced by an average of $3 billion, compared to a strategy of building new resources to meet Northwest load. [These present value savings include estimates of costs and benefits that accrue beyond the 20-year planning horizon because many of these resources have lifetimes that extend beyond 2015. See Appendix H for more detail.] The level of reliance on the West Coast market would be considerably greater than 3,000 average megawatts in some months and much less in others.

When new generating resources are required, the Northwest has numerous options. Natural gas-fired combined-cycle combustion turbines are the most likely choice. The Council estimates there are sites available that are capable of supporting an additional 7,400 megawatts of gas-fired capacity. These sites could supply 6,800 average megawatts of energy at costs of 2.7 to 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour under the medium gas-price forecast.

The other generating alternatives analyzed in this draft plan include industrial cogeneration, coal-fired generation, forest thinning residue-fired generation, geothermal, wind, hydropower, land-fill gas recovery, mixed wood residue burning, nuclear and solar. Currently, there are few generating alternatives that are cost-competitive with combined-cycle combustion turbines -- only some industrial cogeneration, small amounts of new hydropower and a few biomass applications. However, there is a significant amount of cost-competitive conservation available. In the long run, coal-fired generation, some additional hydropower and biomass, wind generation at good sites and fuel cells are expected to become competitive. Gas-fired combined-cycle plants maintain their cost advantage even if a small carbon tax is assessed. If a large carbon tax is implemented, non-fossil fuel burning resources become cost-effective.

The region continues to face uncertainty with respect to the degree to which the operation of the hydropower system might be further constrained to protect fish or wildlife. The Council analyzed three alternative hydropower operations in comparison to the current system operation. Depending on the alternative, the capability of the hydropower system could be increased somewhat or it could experience substantial further losses in energy and capacity.

These changes are uncertain. There is no way to be certain if, when and to what extent new fishery recovery measures might be implemented. The important question is whether the region would make different resource choices in the near term in the face of this uncertainty. The Council believes the answer is no. The flexibility of the resource choices available to the region are such that, given sufficient lead time, the power system could adapt. However, some hydropower system changes could come at a significant cost. These issues are analyzed in Chapter 5.

Resource Issues in Competitive Markets

The advent of competitive electricity markets raises new issues with respect to the development of conservation, renewable resources and the consideration of environmental costs and benefits. These issues are explored in detail in Chapter 6 and described in the following paragraphs.

Cost-Effective Conservation

An objective of the Northwest Power Act is "to achieve cost-effective energy conservation." Despite the region's success in conservation development, significant cost-effective energy savings remain. This plan identifies 1,535 average megawatts of electricity savings that could be obtained over the next 20 years at an average levelized cost of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. These savings are equivalent to the electricity generated by seven typical combustion-turbine power plants, and on average, they cost about two-thirds as much.

If this conservation is developed, the region's consumers would save $2.3 billion on their future electricity bills. [ These present value savings are estimated as explained earlier and in Appendix H.] Consumers on their own will make some of the efficiency improvements identified in this plan. The region's utilities have indicated they will secure more. Together, consumers and utilities in the region will probably capture about a third of the available and cost-effective savings over the next 20 years. But, unless the remaining two-thirds of the savings are secured, the region will pay $1.7 billion more in power system costs and natural resource impacts than it needs to.

There are significant uncertainties inherent in any long-term look at the benefits of conservation. In addition to evaluating the conservation over a wide range of demand and fuel price forecasts, the Council looked at a wide range of alternative scenarios to determine how robust conservation's value was to the region. These scenarios included a reduction in the estimate of the available conservation, a dramatic improvement in the cost of generating technologies, and the sudden loss of 3,000 average megawatts of load. In the worst case, the value of conservation dropped as low as $830 million.

On the other hand, there is the risk that growing scientific evidence that global climate change is occurring could result in the imposition of measures to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases thought to contribute to this climate change. If a carbon tax between $10 and $40 per ton of carbon dioxide were implemented in 2005, the value of the conservation would grow to between $3.2 and $6.1 billion.

In even extreme scenarios, the development of further cost-effective conservation is a positive long-term investment for the region. In the shorter term, however, conservation requires that the region incur somewhat higher costs today compared to buying electricity off the West Coast market. For conservation to be successfully developed in the future, the near-term costs must be weighed against its longer-term benefits.

Bonneville and the region's utilities have been the dominant forces behind the success of conservation efforts in the past. However, their role is changing because competitive pressures are making some utilities reluctant to spend money on conservation programs when some of their competitors do not make such investments. As a result, utilities will be unable to secure all the remaining conservation that is cost-effective.

Consumers are expected to save some electricity on their own, but there are significant market barriers that will likely limit this activity. Most Northwest utility resource plans include significant amounts of conservation acquisitions over at least the next four years. As a result, the region has some time to think through potential actions that might be appropriate for the long run.

In light of the potential benefits that may be at risk, the Council suggests that the Comprehensive Review and the states evaluate the costs and benefits of potential mechanisms to acquire conservation beyond what will naturally be developed in the market. The goal should be a competitive market that preserves as much of the conservation benefit as possible.

Some options include: waiting during this transition period to see what happens in the market; instituting a system benefits charge similar to the charge on phone bills that pays for the 911 emergency line; granting utilities distribution monopolies only if they offer conservation opportunities to their customers; or requiring that a certain amount of load growth be met by conservation. The last suggestion would result in efficiency trading, similar to emissions trading, which is already in practice in the electricity industry. Important qualifications for any mechanism are:

  • That it be competitively neutral and not interfere with the market pricing of electricity;
  • That it complement the emergence of competitive markets for energy-efficiency services;
  • That it provide some symmetry between who pays and who benefits;
  • That it be administratively efficient;
  • That it use competitive mechanisms to the greatest extent possible; and
  • That it incorporate mechanisms to ensure performance.

Renewable Resources

Renewable energy projects -- those powered by the sun, wind, biomass, water and geothermal energy sources -- are valued because they have generally favorable environmental characteristics, they offer diversity and flexibility, and they help ensure the long-term sustainability of the power system. An objective of the Northwest Power Act is "to encourage the development of renewable energy resources within the Pacific Northwest."

Renewable projects producing more than 420 average megawatts of energy have been developed since the 1991 Power Plan. These were primarily hydropower and biomass resources. This represents about 17 percent of all resources developed during this period.

Encouraging progress has also been made on the renewable resource confirmation agenda of the 1991 Power Plan. The confirmation agenda incorporates research, demonstration and development activities necessary to test renewable resources under Northwest climate conditions. However, declining wholesale electricity prices have resulted in near-cessation of the development of additional generating resources. This is consistent with the surplus of generating capacity on the Western electrical system, but it raises the question as to what type and level of renewables activity, if any, is desirable in this environment.

Analysis presented in Chapter 6 shows that, for the reasons noted above, few renewable resources are cost-effective in the near term. Even over the long-term, the large inventory of undeveloped renewable resources available to the Northwest has little expected economic value. However, the potential value of these resources would increase substantially if mitigation of carbon dioxide production were required to control global climate change. Such controls could raise the cost of competing resources.

But, even if carbon dioxide controls were needed in the future, there appears to be little economic value in developing renewables in advance of need and cost-effectiveness. Such projects would require a substantial cost premium, they preclude the benefits of later technological development and are unlikely to produce significant economic benefit. This finding holds even with consideration of uncertain fuel prices, water conditions, demand growth and with adoption of relatively high carbon taxes.

Renewable resources are unlikely to be selected by utilities in a competitive market in the near term because they are not cost-competitive. However, key development and demonstration activities conducted now will help the region integrate such resources into the power system in the future.

Based on this analysis, a renewable resource strategy for the Northwest should focus on:

  • Ensuring that the restructured electric power industry provides equitable opportunities for the development of cost-effective renewable resource projects;
  • Ensuring that the renewable resource potential of the Northwest is adequately defined and that prime undeveloped renewable resources remain available for future development. This will require completion of key demonstration projects and additional resource assessment activities that are already under way;
  • Supporting research and development efforts to improve renewable technology;
  • Offering green power purchase opportunities; and
  • Monitoring fuel prices, the global climate change issue and other factors that might influence the value of renewable resources. More aggressive preparation for the development of renewables could be initiated if changes in these factors indicate that accelerated development of renewables is desirable.

Environmental Considerations

The Northwest Power Act requires quantifiable environmental costs and benefits of the power system be taken into account. While there are a number of these costs, for this draft plan, the Council has focused on the implications of possible global climate change.

There is increasing scientific concern that global climate change may be caused by emissions of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is produced in large quantities by power plants (and other energy equipment) that burn fossil fuels. Global climate change is a particularly difficult issue to address in power planning for several reasons. First, while the uncertainty regarding global climate change is narrowing, there remain questions regarding the existence, causes and magnitude of that climate change. The consequences of global climate change are also not well understood.

Second, global climate change is largely "external" to the Northwest. While the Northwest would experience the effects of any climate change that occurs, actions taken unilaterally by the region could not, in and of themselves, significantly affect the degree of climate change experienced by the region. Third, because of the large hydroelectric resources of the Northwest, the electric utility industry is not the most significant producer of greenhouse gases in the Northwest. Reductions in greenhouse gases might be accomplished at less expense in other sectors of the economy or in other parts of the world.

Still, the possibility that emissions of greenhouse gases might someday need to be controlled poses a financial risk. For example, a carbon tax could significantly increase the cost of electricity from fossil fuel power plants. If the type, magnitude and timing of possible carbon dioxide regulations were better known, certain near-term resource choices or, alternatively, investing in carbon offsets (e.g., tree planting) might be good hedges against carbon regulation. However, because of the lack of sufficient information, the Council cannot evaluate strategic responses to global climate change with the level of sophistication that it can bring to, for example, gas price uncertainties or future electricity requirements of the region.

Instead, however, the Council estimated the potential impacts of carbon dioxide control measures on the overall cost of providing electricity to the region, as well as on the relative costs of alternative resources. A range of possible carbon tax rates was used to represent the cost of carbon dioxide control measures. A carbon tax would raise the Northwest's total electricity bill and increase the value of energy-efficiency improvements, renewable resources and nuclear power plants. The value of efficient natural gas-fired resources would also increase relative to other fossil-fuel resources.

Until the uncertainty regarding climate change is resolved by scientific consensus, and national and international policies respond to that consensus, the region can reduce its exposure to risk by:

  • Avoiding investments in generating resources that are heavy emitters of greenhouse gases;
  • Securing cost-effective conservation;
  • Gaining experience with measures to offset greenhouse gas emissions, such as reforestation; and
  • Considering the carbon dioxide offset value of the region's only operating nuclear plant.

The Role of the Bonneville Power Administration

The transition to a competitive electricity industry raises many issues for the Bonneville Power Administration. The reasons for this are several. First, as a wholesale utility, competition is already here for Bonneville and will probably become more intense. Second, Bonneville markets the output of a public resource, the Federal Columbia River Power System. Third, Bonneville plays an extremely large role in both generation and transmission in the region. And fourth, Bonneville is responsible for a number of public purposes besides power production, including discounts for rural customers, energy-efficiency programs, fish and wildlife recovery, and research and development.

As the region thinks about the role of Bonneville in a more competitive power industry, the questions raised by the principles for effective competition (in Chapter 3) must be asked and answered for Bonneville, just as for any other actor in the market. Does Bonneville have undue market power in transmission or generation? If so, how is that market power most effectively mitigated? More fundamentally, what is the appropriate role for a federal agency in a competitive market? Can it be a full competitor or must its role be somehow limited? Are there alternatives for ownership of Bonneville's assets or marketing rights that might be preferable, and, if so, what are some of the key issues that must be resolved? How should the benefits and risks of the system be allocated? How should the products of the system be marketed and priced? And how should the public purposes currently carried out by Bonneville be fulfilled? None of these questions has easy or clear answers.

Many argue that the Bonneville Power Administration, as currently configured, violates several of the principles for a competitive electricity market. It combines generation and transmission in one entity. It has substantial market power. It is not in a good position to deal with market risk. And it carries out several public purposes that may be difficult to support in a competitive wholesale power market, at least in the ways they have been supported in the past. At the same time, Bonneville is at the heart of the regional power system and embodies many of the values of the region.

Deciding the future role of Bonneville is a key task of the Comprehensive Review. A successful resolution of Bonneville's role is necessary to set the stage for an efficient and competitive regional power system that maintains the benefits of the Federal Columbia River Power System for the Northwest. Some of these considerations are explored in more detail in Chapter 7.

The Role of the Northwest Power Planning Council

Just as the role of the Bonneville Power Administration may be different in the future, the role of the Council in power planning is also in question. The Council's role of establishing a power plan to guide the resource acquisitions of the Bonneville Power Administration is moot if Bonneville is no longer acquiring resources. More generally, the role of a long-term regional power plan in an open market environment is questionable.

The Council's planning responsibilities were not intended as an end in themselves. These were intended to serve the overall purposes of the Northwest Power Act:

  • To encourage conservation and efficiency in the use of electric power;
  • To encourage the development of renewable resources;
  • To assure the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply;
  • To provide for the participation and consultation of the states; local governments, consumers, customers, users of the Columbia River system and the public at large in:
  • the development of regional plans and programs related to energy conservation, renewable resources, other resources, and protecting, mitigating and enhancing fish and wildlife resources;
  • facilitating the orderly planning of the region's power system;
  • providing environmental quality; and
  • to protect, mitigate and enhance the fish and wildlife, and their habitat, of the Columbia River Basin. [ 16 USC ?839 (1)-(6).]

Through the Comprehensive Review, the region will be re-evaluating many of these goals and identifying mechanisms that can accomplish many of the key goals in a new utility context. A number of activities that the Council currently carries out in the course of developing and encouraging the implementation of its plans could be useful to the region, both during the transition to a more competitive utility industry and beyond. These activities include:

  • Providing up-to-date information on future electricity demands, new generating and efficiency technologies, system operations and market forecasts;
  • Serving as a broker for information exchange among utilities and others;
  • Working at federal and state levels to resolve legal and institutional barriers to accomplishing regional goals;
  • Providing impartial analysis of issues with a long-term regional perspective;
  • Serving as a focus for analysis of the interactions between power and fish;
  • Representing the interests of states and the public in power issues; and
  • Being a regional convener of forums to resolve issues.

The restructuring of the Northwest's electricity industry may result in new roles that are appropriate for the Council. On the other hand, some of the existing and potential new roles might also be performed by others. There may still be a need for strategic thinking about the directions the electricity industry might take and the implications for the region. The Comprehensive Review will need to explore these and other possible Council roles. This draft plan elaborates on this question inChapter 8.

Structuring the Competitive Marketplace

This draft power plan is long on analysis and short on conclusions. That is deliberate. It is designed to provide supporting information and analysis for the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System that was inaugurated in January 1996 by the governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. If this draft plan offers any advice, it is this: a deregulated electricity industry will not automatically deliver benefits to all consumers. Deregulation without attention to how competition is structured will not secure the low-cost and reliable electricity that has long been a mainstay of the Northwest's economy. Nor will competition necessarily secure the societal and environmental values this region has come to expect from its power system.

To achieve the full benefits of a competitive electricity market -- lower power costs, innovation in both services and technologies, more choices for consumers, and attention to societal and environmental values -- the Northwest will need to design its own structure for that market. No region in this country is more capable of doing that than the Pacific Northwest.

Report of Independent Auditors in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and Financial Statements

posted Apr 16, 2013

See attached Moss-Adams audit which concluded September 30, 2012.

Preventing an Invasion: Building a Regional Defense against Quagga and Zebra Mussels

posted Apr 16, 2013

Revised Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan

posted Apr 15, 2013

(also see 6th and 5th Power Plans)

Background

In March 1996, the Northwest Power Planning Council released for public comment the Draft Fourth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. Comment on that draft was held open through 1996, while the Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System was conducted. This Addendum to the draft power plan updates information that has changed since the release of the draft plan, incorporates recommendations from the Comprehensive Review Steering Committee and suggests ways to implement those recommendations. The Council will take public comment on this Addendum through October 31, 1997. Hearings are being scheduled in all four Northwest states, and consultations on the Addendum will be held as needed.

The Draft Fourth Northwest Power Plan describes the changing electricity industry, analyzes some of the consequences of the more competitive power market that is emerging, and suggests some alternative strategies the Northwest may adopt in response to industry changes. No changes have been made to that draft; all updating and comments have been incorporated into the Addendum.

Chapter 1: Executive Summary

Chapter 2: The Evolving Northwest Electricity Industry

Chapter 3: Capturing the Benefits of Competition

Chapter 4: The Existing Northwest Power System

Chapter 5: Forecasts and Resource Trends

Chapter 6: Resource Issues in Competitive Markets

Chapter 7: The Role of the Bonneville Power Administration

Chapter 8: The Future Role of the Northwest Power Planning Council

Links to Related Materials and Sites

posted Apr 15, 2013

1983 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan

posted Apr 15, 2013

This report is also called the 1st Power Plan.

See our current power plan page for the most current plan, and history of previous plans.

Introductory letter

To The People of the Pacific Northwest:
 
Three generations ago, the people of the region started building the largest hydropower system in the world. The resulting supply of low-cost power has contributed immeasurably to the quality of life and economic development in the Pacific Northwest. Now, the region must plan to meet future energy needs with conservation programs and resources that are 6 to 15 times more expensive than power from the existing dams. The challenge facing us is to support a strong growing economy while protecting our investment in the low-cost hydropower supply.
 
The Northwest Power Planning Council is charged with the responsibility of determining how much electric power the region will need and planning for the cheapest way to serve that need. The Congress directed the Council to complete the first regional conservation and electric power plan by April 28, 1983.
 
Adoption of this plan marks the beginning of the planning process, not the end. We now look forward to working with the citizens of the Northwest, Bonneville, and other federal agencies, utilities, state and local governments, Indian tribes, and businesses to ensure the successful implementation of this power plan and the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, which was adopted on November 15, 1982.
 
The Council is confident that the region can develop the resources needed to meet the region's
future needs for electricity at the lowest possible cost.

[Signed by Daniel Evans, Robert Saxvik, Charles Collins, Larry Mills, Keith COlbo, Alfred Hampson, Gerald Mueller, Roy Hemmingway]

1986 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan

posted Apr 15, 2013

This report is also called the 1986 Northwest Power Plan, or 2nd Power Plan.

See our current power plan page for the most current plan, and history of previous plans.

Introductory letter

In December 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act — Public Law 96-501 (referred to in this document as the Northwest Power Act or the Act). The Act made sweeping changes affecting the region’s electrical power system. Among the most important, it authorized the Northwest states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington to enter into an interstate compact for the purpose of long-range planning and protection of some specific shared resources. As a result of the Act, each of those four states passed enabling legislation to create the Northwest Power Planning Council in April of 1981. The states’ governors each appointed two members to the Council.

The Act required the Council to develop and adopt both a 20-year electrical power plan for the region and a program to protect, mitigate and enhance the fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin. The Act also instructed the Council to conduct these activities with broad-based public involvement.

The Council adopted the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program in November 1982 and subsequently adopted an amended version in October 1984. The Council adopted its first Northwest Conser­vation and Electric Power Plan (the Northwest Power Plan or the plan) in April 1983. This document, the 1986 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, is the second 20-year power plan produced by the Council with extensive public involvement. It was adopted in January 1986 in compliance with the Northwest Power Act’s directive that the plan be reviewed and changed if necessary at a minimum of every five years.

This plan is more than an amended version of the first plan. Because of a number of significant and rapid changes in the Northwest electrical power picture and because of refinements in information availability and processing, the Council conducted a complete review of the power plan. This is essentially a new 20-year power plan and supersedes the 1983 Power Plan. However, the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, as amended, is incorporated as a part of this 1986 plan.

Unlike the 1983 plan, which set up a two-year planning cycle, the Council expects this 1986 plan to be in effect for a substantial period. The Council will report on the status of the regional economy and electrical needs every six months and will regularly monitor developments that affect resource availability. Sections of this plan will then be updated as needed.

1991 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan

posted Apr 15, 2013

This report is also called the 1991 Northwest Power Plan, or 3rd Power Plan.

See our current power plan page for the most current plan, and history of previous plans.

Introductory letter

To the People of the Pacific Northwest:

These are pivotal times in the Pacific Northwest, urgent times. The region needs new supplies of electricity now, and this plan describes the most financially and environmentally sound means of acquiring them. It is a plan that calls on everyone in the Northwest to use electricity as efficiently as possible. It sets an agenda for a regional commitment to study and develop new energy producing technologies.

Throughout the 1980s, the Northwest had more electric power than it required. But we experienced such an economic rebound that we've exhausted that surplus.

That's why this plan is a call to action. In it, we outline a strategy designed to respond to a wide range of uncertainty. Between now and the year 2000, we are asking this region to lead the nation by securing at least 1,500 megawatts of conservation in our homes, farms, businesses and industries, as well as efficiency improvements to our power system. This will be an exciting challenge.

We are calling for exploration and demonstration of renewable resource technologies. And we seek answers to questions that have hobbled this region's ability to be decisive about our future use of thermal power plants.

While we were designing this plan, we were also mindful of the need to protect the Columbia River Basin's salmon, particularly those runs that have become the focus of possible declarations under the Endangered Species Act. Much of what we do in our society affects the salmon's survival, but there is no question that the dams we rely on for power are a major source of the problem. Changes in how the dams are operated-changes that could reduce the amount of electricity we can draw from the dams at certain times of the year-are one possible response to any salmon listing. We have already begun the process of amending our Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to improve conditions for salmon.

If we are to continue to meet this region's electrical needs at the lowest possible cost — to rate payers, the environment and the Northwest's economy — we will need the cooperation of every Northwesterner. Now is the time to act. The power is yours; make the most of it.

[signed by James Goller, Ted Bottiger, Robert Saxvik, Tom Trulove, John Brenden, Angus Duncan, Stan Grace, Ted Hallock]

1982 Columbia River Basin Fish & Wildlife Program

posted Apr 15, 2013

To the People of the Pacific Northwest:

Three generations ago, when the Columbia River and its many tributaries ran free to the sea and fish and wildlife were plentiful, the people of our region were presented an unmatched opportunity. To the credit of their vision, skill and courage, they harnessed this mighty river system into a seemingly boundless supply of low-cost electricity. Thanks to their foresight, we have all benefited immensely.

But this achievement, like all great achievements, had a price. The development of the Columbia River System’s hydroelectric projects dramatically changed the natural fish and wildlife habitat, especially that of the prized Pacific salmon and steelhead. The fish runs were nearly destroyed, and it falls to this generation to rebuild the natural resources that flourished before we came.

The fish and wildlife program is an important step in this rebuilding. To use our region’s rivers as a continuing source of renewable energy while implementing this program requires a new sense of purpose. By tapping the ingenuity and commitment of our citizens, we can rebuild our damaged fishery and wildlife habitat. It is with this renewed sense of stewardship for our natural resource heritage that we have developed this program.

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program — Strategy for Salmon

posted Apr 15, 2013

The Strategy for Salmon was published in 1992 and scanned for web access in 2006.

Volume 2 is divided into sections for faster downloading (but still be aware of some large file sizes).

Volume 1 (19mb PDF): Overview of the fish program

Volume 2: Measures, Conclusions, recommendations

Executive Summary (4.5mb PDF)

Section 1: Introduction (4.7mb PDF)

Section 2: Program Framework and Goal (3.2mb PDF)

Section 3: Juvenile Salmon Migration (9.9mb PDF)

Section 4: Adult Salmon Migration (1.5mb PDF)

Section 5: Salmon Harvest (3.6mb PDF)

Section 6: Coordinated Salmon Production and Habitat (14.7mb PDF)

Section 7: Coordinated Implementation, M&E (3.7mb PDF)

Section 8: Mitigation of Adverse Effects (900k PDF)

Appendices (3.8mb PDF)

1994/95 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program

posted Apr 15, 2013

This report combines the Dec 1994 Program Amendments (document 94-55) and Sep 1995 Amendments (95-20).

1994 Program Amendments

All amendments or jump to sections:

  1. Introduction
  2. Systemwide goal and framework
  3. Coordinated implementation, research, monitoring and evaluation
  4. Salmon goal and framework
  5. Juvenile salmon migration
  6. Adult salmon migration
  7. Coordinated salmon production and habitat
  8. Salmon harvest
  9. Mitigation for adverse effects of salmon and steelhead measures
  10. Resident fish
  11. Wildlife
  12. Future hydroelectric development
  13. Amendment process
  14. Disclaimers
  15. Findings on the recommendations for amendments to the anadromous fish portions of the program

Appendices or separate files:

  1. Recommendations regarding habitat objectives and funding sources
  2. Summary of hydropower costs and impacts of the mainstem passage actions
  3. Assuring an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply
  4. Staff analysis of biological benefits of mainstem passage actions
  5. Minority opinion