In addition to the BPA proposal, there is assumed a consistent or complementary regional structure that would provide for the related activities of the non-Federal sector of the Northwest regional power system. Although BPA would assist in the integration of new resources into the regional power system, many utilities would be responsible for their own load forecasting and resource acquisition. Presumably, as BPA power allocations become insufficient, existing and new preference customer utilities would seek new energy resources of their own. Investor-owned utilities would also be responsible for meeting load growth on their systems through conservation or other resources. BPA direct-service industrial customers would have no assured long-term power supply upon expiration of their present contracts with BPA; what those firms might elect to do as a result is conjectural.

The responsibilities of State and local governments for energy facilities siting would remain unchanged as would the regulatory authorities of State agencies except as modified, if at all, by new State laws or as required by new Federal legislation.

The regional complement assumes continuation of the cooperative agreements (e.g., the Northwest Power Pool, the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement, the Columbia River Treaty, etc.), assumes there will be incentives for utilities to enter into multiparty construction agreements to capture economies of scale and other benefits, and assumes that the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee or some similar entity comprised of regional utilities would continue to participate `in identifying the need for and characteristics of proposed regional resources.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the BPA proposal, this Final Role EIS identifies four alternatives. The BPA proposal and all four of the alternatives are described in detail in Chapter III of this document. The key elements of three of those alternatives--Alternatives 1, 2, and 4--are strictly described here. Because Alternative 3 has received much more intensive and widespread attention than any of the other three, it is deemed the ranking alternative and is treated separately in the next section of this overview to facilitate a side-by-side comparison to the BPA proposal.

Alternative 1--Legislation Reducing BPA's Role in the Region. Under this alternative, BPA's existing authority, particularly with respect to transmission construction, would be significantly reduced through repeal of portions of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974. Under such use restrictions, the Federal transmission system would not be available to facilitate regional planning involving non-Federal power. Except for Federal projects, BPA would have no responsibility to provide additions to the Federal transmission system. The regional structure depicted is one where resources and transmission needs within the region are resolved through independent effort by diverse utility interests.

Alternative 2--Existing Authority; BPA's Role Declines Relative to the Region. Under this alternative, no new legislation, either reducing or expanding BPA's operations, is considered and no dynamic change from past practices is contemplated. Differing from Alternative 1, this alternative would allow for BPA construction of additions to the Federal transmission system as needed to integrate some non-Federal generation. But, because of BPA's diminishing role over time in relation to the region as a whole, this alternative assumes the formation of one or more "mutual operating agencies" to supplement some collective services now provided by BPA, including transmission and scheduling.

Alternative 4--New Authority; Regional Energy Commission. Under this alternative, which is based upon elements of the Weaver Bill, a Regional Energy Commission with broad authority to determine regional energy policy would be established through legislation and, in cooperation with BPA and regional non-Federal utilities, would provide integration, pooling, and marketing of all the electric energy in the region. Under the direction of the Regional Energy Commission, BPA would become the energy wholesaler for the Pacific Northwest offering full requirements contracts to all utility and other participants in the region.

ALTERNATIVE 3: THE RANKING ALTERNATIVE

Regional power planning problems, described earlier, have been increasing in both abundance and severity. Those problems triggered development and presentation of several legislative proposals to Congress. Since the Federal Government plays such a large role in the scheme of things and since BPA is the Federal Government's power marketing agency in the Northwest, it is no surprise that all of the legislation that has been introduced would, if enacted, substantially impact BPA's role in the region.

Legislation entitled "The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Supply and Conservation Act" (S. 2080 and H.R. 9020), which was developed under the auspices of the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) with the participation of BPA's direct-service industrial customers and others, was introduced in Congress in September 1977. Under this legislation, (1) a new regional utility organization with various power planning functions would have been established, (2) an energy conservation program with strong incentives would have been mandated, and (3) BPA would have had increased authority to purchase power from non-Federal powerplants and sell that power and Federal system power at three different rate levels. The legislation would have authorized but not obliged BPA to purchase and then supply the future power requirements of all of the region's utilities and existing BPA direct-service industries requesting that service.

Legislation was also introduced in that session of Congress by Oregon's U.S. Representative Jim Weaver to create a "Columbia Basin Energy Commission" (H.R. 5862). The Commission would have determined regional electric energy policy, prepared load/resource forecasts, balanced electric energy demand and supplies, established BPA rates and terms for the acquisition, sale, and disposition of electric energy by BPA, and, in cooperation with BPA and non-Federal utilities, provided for generation and purchase, integration and pooling, and marketing of all Pacific Northwest electric energy. Within that context, BPA would have been responsible for implementing the Commission's decisions to acquire, pool, transmit, and market electric energy generated in the Pacific Northwest. The lowest cost BPA energy would have been made available for "use of the general public, domestic and rural," and for city, county, and State government uses. The remaining BPA energy would have been available to serve all other regional electric energy demands.

Many field hearings were held on these bills by both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Those hearings showed that while the PNUCC proposal enjoyed support among most utilities and electroprocess industries, some utilities opposed its allocation provisions. Many nonutility interests also opposed the bill because of its power purchase provisions, anti-trust problems, and a perceived lack of emphasis on conservation and public involvement. The "Weaver Bill" was supported by many conservation and environmental groups, but it was opposed generally by the utility industry and by some nonutility interests due to its

sweeping alterations in existing institutional arrangements. the bills was able to generate a consensus in the region.

Neither of

The hearings did demonstrate, however, that regional power legislation was needed. Several points were made clear:

1. Failure to pass legislation expeditiously could trigger implementation of Oregon's Domestic and Rural Power Authority (DRPA) along with an almost certain prospect for paralyzing litigation to follow. However, the Oregon legislature has amended the legislation authorizing DRPA, postponing its effective date from March 1979 to March 1981.

2. Other lawsuits are already in process and, no matter what their outcome, they are almost certain to be appealed.

3. BPA will issue its proposal for the allocation of existing Federal power and, following consideration of public comments on the proposal, BPA will establish its final allocation policy in 1981; that policy may also be taken to court where it would probably be tied up in litigation beyond the expiration of the first direct-service industry contract in 1981 and the first preference utility contract in 1983.

4.

The prospects of acrimony and dissension among the regional power interests are likely to increase the longer regional power supply issues remain unresolved.

5. In the meantime, an effective regional electric energy conservation program and resolution of the region's power supply problems would be impeded.

Accordingly, consensus began growing among the region's utilities, States, and political leaders regarding the need for legislative changes that would appropriately broaden BPA's role in the region while retaining a diversity in the ownership and management of the region's power system and ensure appropriate local, State, and regional controls, as well as congressional oversight. As a result of hearings in the 95th Congress, Northwest congressional leaders drafted and introduced legislation in Congress in August 1978. The proposed legislation was entitled "Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act" (S. 3418 and H.R. 13931). That legislative proposal attempted to be responsive to national energy policy, as well as to the diverse electric power and State and local governmental interests of the region. In the spring of 1979, every member of the congressional delegation from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, except Representative James Weaver, of Oregon's Fourth Congressional District, sponsored and reintroduced this same legislation as S. 885 and H.R. 3508. This version passed the Senate on August 3, 1979. Representative Weaver introduced an alternative bill, "Northwest Renewable Resources, Conservation, and Energy Planning Act" (H.R. 4159), which also proposed mechanisms for regional power planning.

Elements of the Ranking Alternative

The ranking alternative was developed on the basis of guiding principles very similar to those set forth earlier in this overview. It is based on the legislation as originally introduced in Congress in August 1978, modified to reflect suggested amendments for improvement which repeatedly surfaced in subsequent congressional hearings held in Washington, D.C., and in the region. Among the most significant provisions of the ranking alternative are the following:

1. Power Planning. A regional power planning and conservation program would be developed and would include regional load/resource forecasts, proposed conservation programs, model wholesale and retail rate structures to encourage conservation, proposed renewable, waste heat, cogeneration, and other resource acquisitions, proposed reserves, and major transmission system additions.

2. Regional and Public Participation. A permanent Bonneville Consumers Council, to be appointed by the governors of the Northwest States, would be established. Half the members would be elected local government officials. A permanent Bonneville Utilities Council would be established, consisting of representatives elected by the region's utilities and the direct-service industrial customers. BPA would estab

lish comprehensive public participation programs. The regional power planning and conservation program would be developed in consultation with the Northwest governors, the Consumers and Utilities Councils, BPA customers, and the general public. If there were significant disapproval, the issues would be sent to Congress for resolution. event, congressional approval would be required for all major resources acquisitions each of which would be included in BPA's annual budget submittal to Congress.

In any

3. Resource Acquisition Process. All proposed major resource acquisitions would undergo review by the public at large, the Northwest governors, and the Consumers and Utilities Councils, and each would be submitted with the views of the governors and the Councils to the Congress, together with evidence of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

4. Conservation. Before BPA could acquire new electric energy resources, action would have to be taken to implement all feasible, cost-effective conservation. BPA would also be obliged to encourage energy conservation among regional consumers by providing technical or financial assistance, cooperating with utilities and governmental authorities to promote voluntary conservation, and aiding State and local governments in devising conservation mechanisms.

5. Renewable Resources. If conservation savings were inadequate to meet BPA's power obligations, BPA would be authorized to obtain energy from feasible, cost-effective energy sources, owned by other entities, which relied on renewable fuels, waste heat, or cogeneration.