Mr. WEAVER. Roger Taney was not a lawyer? Mr. SWISHER. He wrote the Dred Scott decision. He was not a lawyer. Mr. WEAVER. That is right. That is interesting. I have hope yet. Thank you very much for appearing, and by unanimous consent, other written testimony may be included in the record. With that, the subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX MONDAY, JULY 11, 1983 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SPRAGUE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINING, FOREST MANAGEMENT AND BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES We appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the potential for expanding electric power transmission between the Pacific Northwest and California. We concluded in 1980 that intertie expansion would be beneficial to the Northwest, California, and the Nation as a whole even though the Northwest was projecting power deficits. Recent Northwest forecasts now project power surpluses ranging from 4 to 18 years, therefore, the benefits envisioned in 1980 are even greater today. Because of the surplus power situation, Bonneville has initiated negotiations with California utilities for short-term (3 to 7-year) contracts for firm surplus energy over the existing lines. Bonneville has also initiated discussions with other Northwest utilities and California utilities for long-term contracts up to 1,500 MW. In addition, Bonneville is studying various intertie expansion alternatives and has initially concluded that all are economically feasible. Although the options appear economically feasible, the financial risks involved have hampered intertie expansion. Before utilities are willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on an additional intertie, they want to be assured that risks are at a minimum. Regarding intertie expansion, investors are concerned about (1) not knowing how much surplus power will be available from the Northwest on a long-term basis (beyond 1990) and uncertainty as to its price, (2) not having secure power deliveries because of Federal legislation that provides for a call-back provision on all Bonneville sales of power for use outside the region, (3) private utilities not having assurance on power allocations because of Federal legislation that provides preference in the allocation of Federal power to public bodies and cooperatives, and (4) public utilities not having access to intertie capacity. The Federal Government has a strong presence in the Northwest (Bonneville) which could aid in addressing the impediments to intertie expansion. Clearly, Bonneville, has been and should continue to be a facilitator in the intertie negotiations and needs to play a key role in addressing the impediments. Bonneville should work with the Northwest utilities to determine how much Northwest surplus energy is available for marketing to California, how long the surplus will be available, and how the energy will be priced. Bonneville needs to continue to consult with the Canadian provincial Governments to determine how much Canadian energy might be available for export through the Northwest to California and at what price. Bonneville needs to determine whether the legislative restrictions can be addressed in the negotiation process. If not, the Administrator of Bonneville should initiate any legislative changes that would be appropriate to facilitate successful conclusion of the negotiations. If no agreements on intertie expansion have been reached after 1-year, the Secretary of Energy, based on cost-benefit or other appropriate analyses, may want to seek congressional approval for the two Federal power marketing agencies in these regions, Bonneville in the Northwest and the Western Area Power Administration in California, to develop the most cost effective intertie solutions. UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY RESOURCES, STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SPRAGUE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINING, FOREST MANAGEMENT AND BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION Mr. Chairman: We appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the potential for expanding electric power transmission and transactions between the Pacific Northwest and California. In a 1980 report, 1 we concluded that additional intertie capacity between the Northwest and California would save California about 4 million barrels of oil annually while earning additional revenues for the Northwest. We found that enough non-firm surplus energy existed, primarily in the spring and summer, to justify upgrading the existing direct current (d.c.) line and constructing an additional alternating current (a.c.) line. These benefits were available even though the Pacific Northwest was projecting power deficits. The power picture has changed in the Northwest over the past few years. The deficit projections of 3 years ago have now changed into power surpluses. For example, the recently issued Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan projects firm energy surpluses could last up to 18 years and peak around 3,400 average megawatts (MW) or last about 4 years and peak at about 1,200 average MW. These surpluses assume that power plants under construction will come on-line as anticipated. They also do not include conservation likely to be induced by future rate increases 1-Oil Savings from Greater Intertie Between the Pacific Northwest and California," EMD-80-100, Sept. 24, 1980. 25-181 0-83--7 or conservation programs. Because of the changed conditions, and the benefits that could accrue to both regions from intertie expansion, we initiated a follow-up review of our 1980 report to determine the status of the recommendations in that report, identify and examine specific factors affecting expansion of the intertie, and determine what the Federal Government could do to accelerate intertie expansion. Our testimony is based largely on our work over the past several months which is currently being put into report form. Therefore, our views are tentative and subject to modification. The existence of firm surplus energy should greatly enlarge the benefits of building additional interties. While no decision has been made to build an additional intertie, actions are being taken to increase the capacity of the existing intertie. The existing d.c. line is being upgraded by 400 MW and operating improvements have achieved an additional 300 MW on the a.c. lines. Because of the projected surpluses, Bonneville has initiated negotiations with California utilities for short-term (3 to 7-year) contracts for surplus firm energy over the existing lines. In addition, Bonneville and other Northwest utilities have initiated discussions with California utilities regarding the potential for long-term contracts up to 1,500 MW. Bonneville has also underway a study of six intertie expansion alternatives and has initially concluded that all alternatives are economically feasible. of the discussion surrounds the following four options. Most --Upgrade the existing a.c. intertie to 3,200 MW. This --Upgrade the existing a.c. intertie to 4,000 MW. This would add 1,200 MW of capacity at a cost of between $50 and $100 million. Completion would not be until 1986 or 1987. --Construct a third a.c. line. This would add between 1,500 and 1,800 MW of capacity and cost between $300 and $400 million. Completion would not occur until 1991 or 1992. |