|
|
home Council Home 
Energy
Comprehensive review archive
- Schedules
- Summary Information
- Document Access
- Feedback
BULLETIN is a publication providing access to information on the 1996 Comprehensive Review of the Northwest Energy System.
(1) BULLETIN ADVISORY :: The next Steering Committee meeting is on Thursday, October 17 at the Red Lion Lloyd Center in Portland, Oregon. There will be a public hearing on Tuesday, October 15 at the Trade, Recreational, Ag Center in Pasco, Washington and a Comprehensive Review workshop on Wednesday, October 16 in Boise, Idaho.
(2) THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW Draft Report may be accessed in the Review Document Access section. Those who may want to examine less than the full document will find an Introduction and Summary of Recommendations and Questions for Public Comment at the beginning of the document.
(3) WORKSHOP AND HEARING COVERAGE of the October 9 public hearing in Eugene on the Comprehensive Review Committee's draft proposal. (From a memo by John Harrison.) About 100 people attended and about 20-25 spoke. All four governors' representatives were present. This memorandum is organized around major issues in the order they are addressed in the proposal. Comments are noted from specific utilities or associations.
FEDERAL POWER SUBSCRIPTIONS -- There was both support and criticism of this proposal. One commentor predicted that aggregators for the smallest customers would not appear and that small utilities simply would disappear. Others were more optimistic. The Oregon Municipal and Electric Cooperative Association, for example, supports the subscription proposal and commented that the options proposal "seems reasonable."
Several commentors said the largest utilities should not be allowed to subscribe first, as this could disadvantage smaller utilities.
Other comments:
- Utilities should not be forced to pick a supplier by a certain date.
- It will be difficult to convince utilities to sign up for 30-year contracts.
- Bonneville should offer a variety of long- and short-term contracts at cost-based rates (Public Power Council).
- The residential exchange must be maintained in order to protect residential and small farm customers of IOUs (Pacific Power and Light)
GOVERNANCE -- Few commentors specifically addressed governance issues, but the common theme was that governance should not be changed without a thorough public process in the region.
CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLES -- Conservation and renewable resources are essential to the economic and environmental well-being of the region, and while a voluntary commitment might work (EWEB recently committed to spend more than 3 percent annually), it is more likely that a mandatory investment will be required to fund these efforts in the long term (EWEB). The Emerald People's Utility District commented that in the absence of Bonneville funding, the utility also recently committed an amount of money to conservation and renewables development that exceeds 3 percent of annual revenues. Other commentors, notably the Public Power Council and the Springfield Utility Board, opposed a mandatory requirement and expressed support for voluntary commitments. Pacific Power and Light supports a regional fund for conservation and renewables development, but also believes the proposal's suggestion that state utility commissions disburse the money is unworkable.
The Northwest Conservation Act Coalition commented that 1) the proposal appears biased against conservation and renewables; 2) conservation funding should be mandatory, not voluntary; and 3) low-income consumers need better protection than is proposed.
Other comments:
- Don't cut regional investments in conservation and renewables by one-third, as the proposal suggests.
- Competition could force utilities to cut programs, particularly for conservation.
- Impose a mandatory requirement as a backup in case the voluntary contribution doesn't raise enough money.
- Don't form another board (the proposed non-profit agency) to distribute the money.
- You should survey Northwest electricity customers and ask how much they would be willing to pay. Then decide how much of a commitment to recommend to the governors.
The report is mostly silent on renewable resources. How come?
CUSTOMER CHOICE -- Advocates of public power, most notably the Public Power Council, commented that local utility boards and commissions must retain authority regarding how and whether customers choose their supplier. Another commentor, however, said these same boards and commissions should only be concerned with ensuring that electrical service is reliable -- a wires-only operation.
There was concern about the impact of choice on small customers -- both small utilities and individual consumers. However, others (including the Springfield Utility Board) suggested that small utilities could band together as aggregators of service and shop for the best deal for the customers they represent, or look for a larger utility to act on their behalf. The Eugene Water and Electric Board, for example, recently signed such a contract with the city of McMinnville.
Other comments:
- Choice would make it difficult for utilities with captive customers to charge usurious rates.
- Must ensure that cost shifts don't disadvantage one class of customer (rural residents, for example) in favor of another (industries).
- Don't accept retail competition as a given; it may not be coming.
- Pulp and paper industry would like choice of supplier in order to stay competitive.
- Equal access to suppliers is important for industry as well as for residential customers.
- Reliability and quality of power is crucial to industry; blips can cause millions of dollars in damage.
LOW-INCOME ASSISTANCE -- Concern was expressed about the recommendations on the low-income issue. It will be difficult for tight state budgets to support low-income assistance. "You are sending fixed-income people hat-in-hand to the state legislatures begging for assistance," one commentor said.
FISH AND WILDLIFE -- There were few comments on this issue. Of those comments, there was general skepticism that Congress would go along with the proposal for a 50/50 share of fish and wildlife recovery costs in excess of the amount in the Memorandum of Agreement.
Several people commented that fish and wildlife investments "are not addressed adequately in this report," as one person said.
TRANSMISSION -- There was general support for legally separating Bonneville into a generating company and a transmission company, as long as Bonneville's obligation to public preference remains.
FUTURE OF BONNEVILLE -- Springfield's utility board and the Emerald PUD both expressed support for Bonneville, whether it remains a unified agency or is split into a genco and transco. Springfield commented that the future success of public power depends on the success of Bonneville, and that Bonneville's rates should continue to be cost-based. Springfield also commented that preference customer rights should continue to be respected after 2001. Emerald expressed support for "the viability of Bonneville in the long term," adding, "we need to keep what the ratepayers have built in the Northwest since the 1930s.
Other comments:
- Bonneville should be able to continue to meet load growth through resource acquisition on behalf of its customers.
- A unified Bonneville is a part of our regional heritage, and it should not be split up.
ON THE REPORT ITSELF -- Several commentors said the report has a negative tone and criticized it as a series of compromises rather than a demonstration of leadership.
Other comments:
- The proposal lacks strong consensus on key issues.
- It doesn't relate the urgency of the 1998-99 time frame for implementing customer choice.
- It doesn't propose alternatives (specifically solar) to traditional forms of generation.
- Overall, it's unbalanced. It gives security to WPPSS bondholders and to big utilities, but it's "mushy" regarding public purposes.
- There is a bias toward the needs of industry (NCAC).
- It doesn't seem to meet the governors' goals, particularly regarding protecting natural resources and conservation and renewables, as stated in their charge to the committee.
- It is an exercise in "historic myopia;" it's the same old story; it's pro industry.
- While the proposal contains "a lot of ideas," they are not explained. The details and explanation are put off to some future time. That's irresponsible.
(4) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WORKSHOPS on the Draft Report as revised by the Steering Committee are listed in the Comprehensive Review Hearings and Workshops document. For further information, call the Northwest Power Planning Council at 1-800-222-3355.
(5) DOCUMENT ACCESS :: All general documents associated with the Comprehensive Review are available in full text at this website on the Review Document Access page, which is organized by month.
For hard copies of this and other Review documents, contact the Northwest Power Planning Council in Portland at 800/222-3355 and ask for Public Affairs.
(6) FEEDBACK :: You may comment generally on the Review, or specifically on review documents, by sending an e-mail to feedback@newsdata.com. The comment will be e-mailed to the Review website and will become part of the official record. For fax and mail comments, fax Comprehensive Review, 503/795-3370 or write to Comprehensive Review, Northwest Power Planning Council, 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204-1348.
BULLETIN is published online and off by Energy NewsData with staff cooperation and funding support from the Northwest Power Planning Council and the Review itself. Reports on meetings are prepared by Resource Writers Inc.
Please contact feedback@newsdata.com if you have questions or comments
about this website or call Lene Hansen at 206/285-4848.
Last modified: October 14, 1996
bull19.html