Council Home 
Energy
Comprehensive review archive
OREGON
Salem
Thirty-eight people attended the meeting which ran from 1:00 to 4:00 PM. About one-third of those attending were public utility representatives. One-quarter identified themselves as citizens or utility customers. The remainder were associated with the energy industry directly or with energy-related programs.
Joyce Cohen ran the meeting. After round-table introductions, Charlie Grist gave a brief overview of the reasons for the Comprehensive Review and a summary of Governor Kitzhaber's objectives and recommendations to the steering committee.
Review Goals: The group first discussed their goals for the review. There was general agreement that Kitzhaber's goals were the right ones. Some warned that competition itself does not create values, people do. General support for keeping decision-making regional. Several spoke to retain long-term thinking, save salmon, help poor people, and retain power system reliability. Shields said the Review must work hard to retain integrity and not devolve into cliques.
Transmission: Fergus Pilon questions the need for a single transmission system operator. But likes to split BPA's transmission and power supply roles. Steve Weiss wants accurate (cost-based) transmission price signals but may accept some subsidy for rural areas. Shields and O'Connor concerned about incentives for system reliability under different transmission ownership and operator models. Several called for fair service to rural areas.
Balance: Several citizens expressed concern about the balancing of private gain and the public good. There was no agreement as to whether electricity should be considered a commodity or whether it is essential therefore not suitable for competitive markets. One citizen/customer not sure they want choice. Choice means a lot more education about impacts required for customers.
Conservation: There was a long discussion on energy conservation. The group generally values conservation highly. There was no agreement on how to do it in a competitive world, or whether it was a state or regional issue. There was both opposition and support for a system charge for conservation. Both opposition and support for a general, non-energy tax to fund conservation. Both opposition and support that utilities should continue conservation.
Bonneville: Shields suggests BPA should stay as a wholesaler. But, if BPA supports no public purposes it should vanish. Suggests direct access to federal power for residential customers rather than the exchange. Weiss says the big issue is WPPSS debt. Suggests charging customers for part, cut costs, kill subsidies, close WNP-2 and maybe hang the rest on transmission. Pilon suggests fish subsidy should be paid by taxpayers.
Summary Values: The meeting ended with each person taking one minute to summarize the values they find most important. A diversity of values surfaced.
Portland
Over eighty people testified at the Oregon Comprehensive Review meeting held in the Metro Building. The crowd, numbering about 100 citizens, represented a wide spectrum of interests from the Portland metropolitan area, including several Vancouver, Washington residents. Over sixty people identified themselves as concerned citizens. The remainder represented industry groups, utilities, public agencies, and energy programs.
Joyce Cohen of the Northwest Power Planning Council chaired the meeting. She invited each attendee to relate the specific values they held regarding the energy system of the Pacific Northwest.
Salmon and Natural Resources: Thirty-two individuals responded that they placed salmon recovery and the loss of salmon as the highest priority of the energy system. Several expressed displeasure that the Comprehensive Review had no focus on salmon recovery and had severed the issue from its review of the energy system. Diane Valentine stated that salmon protection should be the fundamental starting point for the Review. Elaine Droskie believed the Review should explore the possibility of giving BPA some form of credit for the number of salmon that return to the Columbia River System.
Six people mentioned that the environment should receive high consideration in any energy system. Protection of natural resources garnered the support of five members of the public as a value for any new energy system.
Energy Conservation and Energy Sources: Energy conservation and developing cost effective energy conservation was mentioned twenty-one times. The public also supported the development of renewable resources. Sixteen people testified on behalf of the development of clean, renewable power. Three people specifically supported the development of solar power. George Wyss cautioned that power rates here are lower than rates in areas of wind and other renewables. Eleven people testified that they would pay more for power if it would lead to the protection of natural resources and the development of conservation and renewable energy. One individual recommended a general tax to support conservation rather than relying upon ratepayers to support such efforts. Three people mentioned that utilities no longer served as a good conservation vehicle and that the Review should try to devise another method for developing conservation resources.
Certain energy sources received criticism from some sectors. Four people spoke against nuclear power and its development. Betty Smith and other residents of Vancouver stated that competition has lead to a rate payer fiasco at Clark County PUD. A new, unneeded power plant and a duplicative transmission line are being built under the guise of competition. Terry Egnor felt the impacts of a mono-cultured energy system were obvious in the stresses placed upon the environment.
Bob Liddell felt that technology deserved the opportunity to prevail in the energy system. Jay Ward countered that ecological health, not technology, needed to prevail in developing a new energy system.
Subsidies: Three audience members mentioned the need to evaluate energy subsidies as an important goal of the Review. John Esler of PGE stated that the Review should evaluate all subsidies to see if they make sense.
Certain subsidies and programs received the support of portions of the crowd. Six individuals mentioned continued and increased support of low-income programs as values they would like the Review to address. Rob Walton felt that service to rural areas was a value the Review should continue to support.
Other subsidies merited condemnation from the audience. Austin Collins believed that the residential exchange had taken money from public power to benefit private interests and that the exchange should cease. Two other audience members inveighed against sweetheart deals for the big industrial customers.
General Goals/Focus: Keeping public power to benefit public purposes received the mention of eight members of the audience. Six people stressed accountability for both expenditures of the energy system and the decision members as important values. Four members of the public stressed equity in balancing costs and benefits of changes to the energy system. Others stressed the Review should concentrate on better informing and educating the public.
Laura Culderson believed the Review should take a long-term focus and forget shortsightedness. Others stressed the need for long-term solutions. Don Bracken felt the Review had not focused on the societal objectives it needed to address. Jim Jackson stated that we did not need Washington, DC solutions to a series of regional concerns.
Eugene
Forty-five people participated in a free-ranging discussion of the current energy system and the values they feel the Comprehensive Review should address. Chaired by Northwest Power Planning Council Member Joyce Cohen, the meeting featured comments by twenty-nine public power representatives, several business people, and ten concerned citizens.
Public power: The audience expressed strong support for the value of preserving public power and the public benefits incorporated in the Acts governing the region's public power. Karla Droste felt a chief goal of the Review would be to see public power thrive. Garry Kunkle of EWEB thought the region needed to allow public entities to be successful to deliver on public benefits.
Public benefits: The audience generally agreed that Review should continue to support the public benefits detailed in the Northwest Power Act of 1980. Alan Zalenka of EWEB stated that the goals of the Act of 1980 are as valid now as they were in the 1980s. Kim Ohmart thought the region should recommit to the original goals of the Act. Jorin Weber of EPUD believed natural monopolies were fine place to implement the public values expressed in the Act. The specific public benefits the meeting focused upon were --
Conservation and Renewables - Twenty-three attendees expressed support for the preservation of conservation efforts and the development of renewable energy sources. Susie Smith of EWEB expressed concern that conservation would not survive in a competitive marketplace. She felt the Review should study the development of green energy markets and how to pay for "green power." Doug Still of the board of EPUD stated that energy purchasers should pay to help the region gain all cost-effective conservation. He believed that tacking a surcharge onto transmission costs would allow the region to pay for the public purposes it valued.
Fish and the environment - Seventeen participants believed that fish enhancement and environmental protection were fundamental values worth consideration by the Review. Marriner Orum thought salmon preservation and restoration and other environmental issues must take high priority in the Review. Craig Satein cautioned that system analysis has not appropriately diagnosed the real cost to the environment and that the top issue of the Review should be how to minimize the impact of the energy system on the environment.
Rural service/Universal access - Nine Eugene participants supported the concept of universal access to the power grid and that any energy system should service rural customers at an affordable, equitable rate. Rick Crinklaw of Lane Electric had problems with rural service being referred to as a subsidy. He stated that rural service was an historical decision made on a national basis. Bill Kopacz of Mid-State Electric felt that urban areas received the subsidy of power generated east of the Cascades and that rural areas need accessible transmission at reasonable rates.
Equity: Ten commentors referred to an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of the system as being a key value they would stress. Ron Benfield of Central Lincoln opined that if there are benefits from the system, they should be shared equally by all customers, not simply given to large industrial load users. Alan Zalenka wondered about the protection for different classes of customers, particularly DSIs, leaving the public to pay for costs if the DSIs depart from the system. Steve Curtis believed that a level playing field was needed to extend benefits to low-income customers and residential customers in general.
Public Education: Apart from the public goods and benefits of the system, six participants mentioned the need to educate the public on the issues involved in the Comprehensive Review. Chris Attneave of Lane Electric felt that since it was hard for decision makers to keep up with changes in the energy system, it was important to have somebody educate the general public on all the aspects of the Review. Dick Eymann of EPUD emphasized the need to keep the grass roots in mind on developing solutions, not just letting thought leaders control the process.
Control of the issues: Two people suggested that the state take control of all utilities and distribution, including IOUs, to help pay down the debt and preserve public values. Sara Baker-Sifford cautioned that public utility distribution lines should not be state regulated and have been self-governing for forty years.
Three participants stated that the region needed to assert control over the issues involved. Sterling Benzel warned that we would not get any sympathy in Washington, DC to control the price of electricity.
Other areas of discussion: Three people mention the need to develop passive solar power as a specific alternative energy source. Larry Cable representing Diamond Energy warned of the need to equitably allocate and pay for the WPPSS debt. He noted that the WPPSS debt was a straight contractual debt. If it was not equitably allocated, it would lead to bankruptcies. He suggested starting with the proposition that everyone pays for these contractual obligations, through a surcharge or some mechanism that is charged to everyone in the system.
Six participants urged the Review to concentrate on long-term sustainablility for any revamped energy system. Chris Attneave wondered why the discussion focused upon changes like retail wheeling being some inevitable steamroller waiting to overtake us.
Finally, the Review was informed to include tribal participation and find some way to integrate all the sovereigns - state, federal and tribal - into the process. Integrating the sovereigns would engage them in the decision making process.
Pendleton
An overflow crowd of over 100 people, greeted Governor Kitzhaber's representative on the Comprehensive Review, Roy Hemmingway, and Oregon Power Planning Council Members John Brogoitti and Joyce Cohen for the fourth Oregon Public Involvement meeting held at the Pendleton Red Lion. One-half of the crowd was composed of Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation members, Tribal Council members and staff, and a large contingent of young Salmon Corps volunteers. The remainder of the crowd featured representatives of Umatilla Electric Cooperative, several agricultural community members, citizens, port authority representatives, and local industry and economic development representatives.
John Brogoitti opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and immediately ushering the crowd into a larger meeting room. The Pendleton crowd outnumbered the Portland meeting, making it the largest of the four public involvement meetings held in the state. With everyone situated, Joyce Cohen reviewed Governor Kitzhaber's objectives for the Review and his summary of key power system values. She then asked everyone to state their values for the energy system of the Pacific Northwest.
Fish and Wildlife: Sixty-five people testified during the course of the meeting. Forty-one expressed support for the inclusion of salmon recovery as part of the Regional Review's purview. Most felt that the Review could not adequately address the concept of a new energy system without including salmon recovery as part of the equation.
Jay Minthorn of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation read a statement from the Tribe warning the Review that power issues and salmon recovery must not be viewed in isolation. Forgetting the connection between the two issues have led to the problems that we face today in terms of endangered species and failure to address tribal treaty rights. All tribal members who spoke supported the tribal position. Some lamented the lack of tribal representation on the steering committee. Mildred Quince spoke of the tragic loss of respect for the Tribe and its beliefs since the treaties of 1855. The decisions made today have caused the loss of everything provided by nature that her elders relied upon and had told her about.
Rick George of the CTUIR staff cautioned that the Review could not address the questions of the energy system, such as the proper level of conservation, without first addressing the amount of water that should be removed from hydroelectric production to insure the restoration of salmon runs and preservation of treaty rights. Roy Hemmingway assured the crowd that issues affecting salmon recovery would be discussed in the Review, but that the governor had not charged the Review to address salmon recovery or the Federal obligation for such recovery. Hemmingway stated the obligation to recover salmon exists and will not be altered by the Review.
Several people spoke of the need for cooperation and compassion to help solve these issues. Others, such as Karl Anderson and Jeff Van Pelt, vowed that they would pay more in electric rates to recover salmon and address the full environmental impact of the hydro-system.
Universal Access: The second area of concern of the Pendleton meeting came from representatives of agriculture and public power. Thirteen people spoke of the need to continue to supply electricity to rural segments of the population at affordable rates.
Steve Eldrige of Umatilla Electric noted that the free market existed prior to the advent of the dams and BPA, but that rural customers were not serviced at a reasonable price or not serviced at all. Henry Lorenzen warned that in a free market system, there would be no rush to supply low density areas with electricity.
Local Business Concerns: Max Eldred, a farmer, stated that agriculture in the area had grown through cheap power and a little water from the Columbia River. He would like to see those conditions continue. Several others in agriculture concurred. Representatives of several local industries supported the Governor's environmental objectives.
Governor's Objectives: The crowd expressed support for the Governor's objectives in the Review. There was strong support for continued energy conservation and environmental protection. Several individuals felt the objectives need some additions. Twelve people specifically mentioned adding salmon recovery to the list.
Alanna Farrow noted the Governor's objectives failed to include cultural resources and their protection. Several tribal members expressed support for her position. Terry Edvalson of Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council felt the objectives should include job creation for eastern Oregon and rural Oregon. Glenn Brody of Umatilla Electric thought the objectives should include other river uses, such as shipping and irrigation. Gene Shippentower believed the objectives needed more specificity in terms of the resources the Governor wanted to diversify.
Other Goals/Values: Six people stressed the need for affordable rates for low income citizens. Four expressed support for low-income weatherization projects as economically sensible and energy efficient.
Four citizens believed population pressures in eastern Oregon were leading to some of the problems they faced and they felt the Review should explore population as a factor in the energy system. Three people mentioned stranded debt and proper planning to avoid WPPSS-like scenarios as focal points for the Review. Finally, there were some expressions of support for BPA. Bob Hoeffel of Oregon Water Coalition said our system is the envy of the rest of the nation, though it could be better managed.
Several individuals called for loyalty and responsibility for past decisions. Those who have benefited from low-cost hydropower should not abandon the system the moment it is more expensive than an alternative.
Please contact
feedback@newsdata.com if you have questions or comments
about this website or call 206/285-4848.
Last modified: March 26, 1996
http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/review/documents/ormeet.html