| |
Evaluating cost-effectiveness of proposed projects
1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Act requires the Northwest Power
Planning Council to conduct a cost-effectiveness evaluation of proposed fish
and wildlife projects before those projects receive funding.
To conduct the cost-effectiveness evaluation for proposed Fiscal Year
2000 projects, the Power Planning Council called on its panel of nine
independent economists, the Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB), to
conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis using a methodology developed by the
panel and the Council.
The cost-effectiveness evaluation helps the Council ensure fish and
wildlife projects make the best use of public resources and satisfy the
Power Act amendment. In addition, the Council also initiated the following
activities in response to the amendment:
- An annual independent scientific review to provide guidance regarding
which projects are likely to provide the most benefits to fish and
wildlife. The independent science review also focuses attention on
monitoring and evaluation of projects, another step to more effective
management of the fish and wildlife program.
- An annual, comprehensive array of project and fish and wildlife
program costs, including out-year budget needs.
- Support for Bonneville's use of an independent contractor to provide a
check on the accuracy of capital cost estimates for construction-related
projects and to provide suggestions for how to cut those costs while
achieving the same objectives.
- Individual project reviews, in which questions about the scope,
effectiveness and other issues related to specific projects are
scrutinized by the Council and its staff.
- Soliciting and considering recommendations for further
cost-effectiveness reforms in the project selection process from the
Independent Scientific Review Panel, the IEAB, the independent contracting
audit and the public. Examples of these recommendations include greater
emphasis on independent peer review, competitive bid procedures,
eliminating potential or perceived conflicts of interest, and improved
monitoring and evaluation.
top
|
|
home