Montana. You are aware that this project extends its reservoir into Canada and, therefore, agreement for its construmtion must be obtained from our northern neighbor. Fortunately, significant strides have been made in recent months to resolve this matter and there is a good chance that construction of Libby may proceed in the near future. The conference committee recommends that Congress authorize and appropriate $387,000 for advance engineering and design on the Libby project in order there would be no delay in the planning for this important project. I would now like to discuss the budget requests of the Bonneville Power Administration. Bonneville Power Administration has requested $30,117,000 for fiscal year 1961. The Administrator has said that $19,142,000 of this amount is to be expended for construction and that the balance, $10,975,000, will be spent for operation and maintenance. This total budget is $1,335,000 less than the funds appropriated for 1960. We have studied these items and are in general agreement with Bonneville Power Administration's budget requests. The conference committee therefore recommends the total budget request for 1961 in the amount of $30,117,000 for Bonneville Power Administration activities. At this time I would like to invite your attention to exhibit III which is the "West Group Forecast of Power Loads and Resources for the period July 1960-June 1971." This report was made by the Utility Conference Committee's Subcommittee on Loads and ReSources on January 29, 1960. In summary, the conference committee, as it has in the past, would like to make it very clear to the Congress that the utility industry of the Northwest does not feel that the Federal Government has the sole responsibility to construct all the power facilities which our region may need. Our requests to the Congress are based on the principle of teamwork. While the Federal Government has an understandable interest in the multiple-purpose development of the Columbia River Basin, this conference committee does feel that the non-Federal agencies of the area should be permitted and encouraged to continue to construct their projects since the basic utility responsibility in the region naturally rests with the electric companies and public agencies which provide direct service to the customer. In meeting this responsibility, these utility agencies have undertaken what is, without question, the largest hydroelectric construction program in the history of the United States. Currently, and for several years ahead, power for all in our area is in good supply. This results from the construction of power production facilities of non-Federal as well as Federal agencies. Our request to you is that the Government prosecute construction of the Federal projects in a manner which is consistent with the program undertaken by the region's non-Federal utilities. It is vital that the Congress keep pace with the development program by the construction of certain projects which have been authorized for Federal development. Our request for appropriations to you today is geared to that principle. Expenditures which we recommend will permit the Government to meet the responsibilities which have accrued to it by virtue of its authorization of certain power developments. We earnestly urge this committee to consider our recommendations. The Columbia River fishery development program, which has been in operation for several years, has the full support of the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee. This program is designed to counteract damage to fishery resources in the Lower Columbia River Basin caused by construction of dams. It is carried on cooperatively between the United States and the appropriate agencies in the States of Oregon and Washington. At the same time many of the non-Federal utility agencies of the area have likewise carried on extensive programs to conserve and enhance our fishery resource. The conference committee recommends that the Congress appropriate the sums requested in the President's budget for this program. The amounts requested are $1,915,000 for operation and maintenance and $1,400,000 for new construction. It is our understanding that this program is now approximately 65 percent complete and that the money requirements to complete the program are $8,449,000. It is recommended by the conference committee that this program be continued on schedule and such appropriations be made in future years as are requested. Again, on behalf of the conference committee and the four million people who look to us for electric service, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. As we have demonstrated over the years, the conference committee members are ready and anxious to cooperate with Congress in any and all ways which will promote the best interests of the electric power consumers in the States in which we operate. (The exhibits follow :) Members Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, Sept. 1, 1959 to Aug. Name and address: EXHIBIT I 31, 1960 Customers served 2. Central Lincoln PUD, Newport, Oreg 1. Cascade Locks City Light, Cascade Locks, Oreg-. 561 3. Chelan County PUD, Wenatchee, Wash.. 12, 114 5. Douglas County PUD, Bridgeport, Wash___ 4. Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative, Inc., Coquille, Oreg_. 16.474 5,774 7. City of Forest Grove, Forest Grove, Oreg-. 6. Eugene Water & Electric Board, Eugene, Oreg 5,577 27,378 8. Grant County PUD No. 2, Ephrata, Wash__ 2,838 9. Grays Harbor County PUD, Aberdeen, Wash.. 14.043 12. Pacific Power & Light Co., Portland, Oreg-. 11. Milon-Freewater Utilities, Milton-Freewater, Oreg-. 10. City of McMinnville Water & Light Department, McMinnville, Oreg 22.068 3,884 2,466 13. Portland General Electric Co., Portland, Oreg-. 249,401 14. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., Seattle, Wash. 249,968 15. Seattle City Light, Seattle, Wash.. 208,927 16. Snohomish County PUD, Everett, Wash... 231,367 Spokane, Wash__. Member systems: 17. Tacoma City Light, Tacoma, Wash___. 18. The Washington Water Power Co., Post Office Drawer 1445, 19. Washington Public Power Supply System, Kennewick, Wash. 58,231 63, 849 148, 390 10.054 5.366 1.237 7.137 539 5,027 1, 352, 676 EXHIBIT II Fiscal year 1961 appropriation recommendations, Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS Recreational facilities at completed projects. Note discussion of this reduction from President's budget in testimony. $10,975,000 18,720,000 $10,975, 000 18, 720, 000 422,000 30, 117, 000 EXHIBIT III EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURE AND METHODS USED IN COMPUTING THE WEST GROUP FORECAST OF JANUARY 29, 1960 Area included covers the utilities operating in and supplying the consumer demands for the State of Washington, the northern part of Idaho and the northwest area in the State of Oregon bounded approximately by Pendleton in the east and Bend and Coos Bay in the south. In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration load in the State of Montana is included in the West Group loads and the Hungry Horse and Noxon hydroelectric plants located in western Montana are included in the west group resources. Load estimates are made by each utility of the area or by their principal supplier. No change in these estimates is made by the Load Resources Subcommittee. The total estimated load for the area is the sum of the utility estimates. Resource estimates include facilities in operation, facilities under construction, proposed Federal facilities authorized and for which money has been appropriated to start construction and non-Federal facilities for which license has been issued by the Federal Power Commission. Those projects actively being investigated and in many instances for which application to construct has been made are not included in the computed resources of the area. Water years on which resources estimates are based are the historical critical year of the area which determines the amount of firm load which can be carried and a median month year which shows the amount of secondary energy available in one-half of the years which can be used to conserve fuel in thermal plants and to supply interruptible loads (it should be noted that energy shown is not available in equal amounts throughout the year). Capability of west group is limited by energy supply and the hydro dependable capacity is in relation to the energy limitations. Energy capability is related to the critical period September 1-April 15 of the 1936-37 adverse water year. Because of reservoir limitations the firm energy deficiency could not be held at a uniform level during this entire period, and the energy calculations are based on the November through March period during which the maximum level of energy deficiency prevailed. Machine capacity is in excess of dependable capacity and, coupled with secondary resources in the median water year and during the runoff season, can be partially utilized for interruptible load and replacement of fuel generation. The tabulations include only that interchange with outside parties presently under firm contract although exhibits have been included in the main report to indicate potential interchange with outside parties. Thermal facilities of the west group are considered reserve resources. Firm peakload growth for the area is at an annual rate of approximately 6.4 percent (energy 5.8 percent) which is slightly above that of the previous førecast. The initial total peakload level is about 50 microwatts (energy 90 microwatts) below the corresponding year in the previous forecast. |