3. Attachment 1: Paper entitled "Determination of Firm Hydro Energy 4. Attachment 2: Letter to BPA from B.C. Hydro, with tables showing current estimates of the Canadian surplus energy available for export to the Pacific Northwest and Southwest, 1983-2003.... 5. Attachment 3: Comments of Charles R. Imbrecht, chairman, Califor- nia Energy Commission, on Northwest Power Planning Council's 8. Attachment 6: Document entitled "Bonneville Project Act, Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act and Other Related Legis- 10. Attachment 8: Exportable Energy Agreement, Contract No. 14-03- 11. Attachment 9: BPA Environmental Manual "Checklist of 16: Consulta- tion, Review, or Permit Required on BPA Proposals for Action". 3. Report entitled "Northwest Regional Forecast of Power Loads and Resources: July 1983-June 2003", March 1983 (excerpts)... 4. Attachment A: Letter from Randall W. Hardy to Hon. Richard L. Ottinger, chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, dated July 5, 1983, transmitting responses to two questions raised at the subcom- mittee's hearing of June 13, 1983, in Portland, Oreg. 5. Attachment B: Paper entitled "Average vs. Critical Water". 6. Attachment C: Paper entitled "Principles for Negotiations of Firm Power Supply Contracts Between Pacific Northwest and Pacific 2. Responses to subcommittee questions Northwest Conservation Act Coalition: 1. Prepared statement of Mark M. Reis, executive director.. 2. Responses to subcommittee questions..... Archer F. Pugh, vice mayor, city of Redding, Calif.; president, Modesto-Santa Clara-Redding (MSR) Public Power Agency; and chairman, Northern Cali- Dale L. Pohlman, assistant general manager, power resources, Anaheim Public Utilities Department, representing the cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Bernard Palk, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, representing the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena, Calif.: 1. Prepared statement of John W. Arlidge, vice president. 2. Report entitled "Disturbance Report: Loss of AC Pacific Intertie at Tesla Substation on December 22, 1982", June 1983 (excerpts).............. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 1. Prepared statement of Michael B. Rosenzweig, Technical Advisor to 2. Responses to subcommittee questions Oregon Public Utilities Commissioner John J. Lobdell: Prepared statement....... 1. Request for Recommendations on Marketing of Surplus Firm Power from Federal Columbia River Power System, 47 Federal Register 2. Document entitled “General Summary of Recommendations Received on Firm Surplus Power Marketing", February 1983... 3. Paper entitled "The Intertie: Summary for Customer Meetings", 4. Document entitled "Surplus Firm Power Marketing Update”, July 6, 632 5. Notice of Intent To Develop Policy on Providing Access to the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie and Request for Recommenda- California Department of Water Resources: Letter from David N. Kennedy, 2. CEC staff responses to questions from Subcommittee on Energy Con- servation and Power, House Committee on Energy and Commerce .... 4. "WAPA Firm Surplus Power Sale Raises Questions, Concerns", and "PNUCC Surplus Sales Workgroup 'Risk Sharing' Subcommittee Meets", September 2, 1983.. 732 Southern California Public Power Authority: Letter from Karl A. Johnson, 1. Letters from Chairman Weaver to Hon. Donald Hodel, Secretary, U.S. Page 745 747 2. Letter from Secretary Hodel to Chairman Weaver, dated June 27, 1983, responding to Mr. Weaver's letter of May 23, 1983. 3. Article entitled "Pacific Northwest Conservation for California: The Mutual Benefits of Long-Term Cooperation", by Daniel W. Meek, from Environmental Law, 1983 U.S. General Accounting Office: Report entitled "Oil Savings From Greater Intertie Capacity Between the Pacific Northwest and California", September 24, 1980.. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission: Letter from Robert W. Bratton, chairman, to Chairman Weaver, dated June 28, 1983, transmitting responses to subcommittee questions. 750 753 829 846 Western Systems Coordinating Council: Letter from Dennis E. Eyre, administrative manager, to Chairman Weaver, dated July 1, 1983. 848 EXPANDED ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION THE NORTH AND TRANSACTIONS AMONG THE MONDAY, JULY 11, 1983 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINING, FOREST MANAGEMENT, Eugene, Oreg. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at Harris Hall, Lane County Public Service Building, 125 East Eighth Street, Eugene, Oreg., Hon. James Weaver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. WEAVER. The Subcommittee on Mining, Forest Management, and the Bonneville Power Administration of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives will be in session. We are holding this hearing today on the prospects for expanded electric power transmission capacity and power transactions between the Pacific Northwest and California. We have asked the witnesses to address the economic and environmental benefits and costs of such additional transmission and transactions, the feasibility of various transmission options, and the financial, legal, institutional, and other obstacles that may have prevented such proposals from progressing. Since 1977, some observers, including the California Energy Commission and the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], have concluded that expanded transmission and power transactions between these two regions could be advantageous to those concerned. In addition, during this period Northwest utilities, including the BPA, have built additions to the Northwest transmission system that would enable larger transfers of power to and from California. The California utilities, however, while installing some new equipment and implementing some new procedures to permit additional power to flow over the Pacific intertie system constructed in the 1960's have yet to embark on construction of transmission which would match the capability of the Northwest system. Since recommendations favoring transmission additions in California in 1977 by the California Energy Commission, and in 1980 by the GAO, the power loads and resources situation in the Northwest has changed considerably. Instead of projecting large deficits of firm power for the middle and late 1980's and beyond, the (1) Northwest utilities now envision a firm power surplus extending well into the next decade. This projected surplus of firm power would be in addition to the nonfirm surplus energy generated by the Northwest hydropower system when streamflows are better than critically low. On the other hand, there is now significant doubt that some of the major generating resources counted on by the Northwest utilities will be completed and operating, particularly WPPSS 4 and 5, now terminated; WPPSS 1 and 3 are now mothballed, and perhaps even WPPSS 2. The questions to be addressed today are: One, in light of the current situation of WPPSS, can the Northwest utilities, including Bonneville, arrange to sell firm power to California without jeopardizing the reliability of service to the Northwest? Two, are the California utilities willing to pay the price for Northwest firm power sufficient at least to cover the cost of developing conservation resources that would be necessary to support sales of a duration longer than a few years? Three, are major additions to the transmission system between the Northwest and California justified on economic and environmental grounds? What are the most favorable transmission alternatives? Four, even without Northwest firm power sales to California, are major transmission additions justified on the basis of expanded nonfirm surplus energy transactions alone? Five, if more transmission is justified, how can we insure that the necessary projects are undertaken and completed within a reasonable period of time? I am very pleased to see the strong contingent of utilities from the State of California, and I welcome you. I do want to say this, though, that it is beautiful weather we have up here. Please don't go back and tell everybody down in California how wonderful it is up here. Then we won't have any surplus power to sell you because everybody will come up here to live, and we will have to keep all the power to ourselves. First, I would like to present a distinguished member of the subcommittee, Congressman Jim McNulty from Arizona, who is a lawyer. I am not. He has played a very valuable role in the hearings we held in Washington, D.C. We are really pleased that he was able to come to this hearing because Arizona, of course, is going to be enormously affected by this as well. Mr. McNulty. Mr. MCNULTY. Good morning, Jim. Thank you for the opportunity. Given the time constraints, I thought it might be appropriate for me to tell the witnesses very quickly the kinds of information. that I hope we will develop by this hearing. Given the enormous quantity of material to review here, I have concentrated my efforts on the third draft of Mr. Meek's treatise of 84 pages and 137 footnotes, and all of my questions derive from things I read there, and more important, I think, things I more suspected than read. Along those lines, I think that the first thing I would want to mention is the obvious financial benefits to be derived from in |