COMPARISON OF PROPOSALS

Bonneville Power Administration proposal Idaho Power Co. proposal

1. Creates least amount of energy usable under firm load for the area.

2. Fails to transform maximum secondary energy into firm power for the

area.

3. No additional winter firm load carrying capability on Idaho Power Co. system (creates winter secondary power).

4. Merely transfers 120 megawatts summer power to 88 megawatts winter power on Idaho Power Co. system.

5. Reduces Idaho Power Co. flexibility of operation for carrying own load and/or integration with others.

6. Provides no incentive to develop upstream storage.

7. Provides no incentive for coordinated operation.

1. Creates greatest amount of energy usable under firm load for the area.

2. Surplus secondary energy is being dedicated first to create maximum firm power for the area.

3. Each system assured a firm capability equal to that which can be produced by that system with use of all upstream storage during critical period of pool area.

4. Idaho Power Co. storage operated for maximum usable energy for the area every year.

5. Provides a market for present wasted and nonsalable kilowatt-hours.

6. Basic principle encourages upstream storage that is needed by area. 7. Provides incentive for coordinated operation.

A method of settlement—median water

BROWNLEE, OXBOW, AND 4 DOWNSTREAM PLANTS

(For water released on request: annual payment 1⁄2 energy generated by storage water-0.445 kilowatt-hours per foot of head per acre-foot, times head, times acre-feet released in critical period)

Operating energy account for winter energy exchange, Bonneville Power Administration credit to Idaho: 0.445×327 × 1,000,000 acre-feet

Kilowatt-hours 145, 515, 000

Integration energy account for summer energy exchange, Bonneville
Power Administration charge to Idaho: median year......

584, 000, 000

Transfer to present exchange agreement:
Operating energy credit to Idaho..

145, 515, 000

Integration energy charge to Idaho: 584,000,000×0.4.......

Balance Idaho owes Bonneville Power Administration____ Winter secondary available which Idaho may use to return above balance...

BROWNLEE, OXBOW, AND HELLS CANYON, AND 8 DOWNSTREAM PLANTS Operating energy account for winter energy exchange, Bonneville

Power Administration credit to Idaho: 0.445X697 feet X1,000,000 Kilowatt-hours acre-feet--

310, 165, 000

Integration energy account for summer energy exchange, Bonneville
Power Administration charge to Idaho: median year..

855, 560, 000

Transfer to present exchange agreement:
Operating energy credit to Idaho..

310, 165, 000

Integration energy charge to Idaho: 855,560,000×0.4...

Balance Idaho owes Bonneville Power Administration.................. Winter secondary available which Idaho may use to return above balance__

342, 224, 000

32, 059, 000

617, 799, 000

WET YEAR

BENEFIT FROM COORDINATION OF BROWNLEE WITH NORTHWEST POWER POOL1941-63 STREAMFLOWS

TABLE I-B.—1962-63 operating year-System prime power capability 1

Average megawatts

6, 503 456

6, 959

Total...

Independent operation of Brownlee:

Main Columbia River system..
Brownlee and Oxbow..

Total.....

Benefit from coordination 2_

1 Average capability during storage drawdown season (Sept. 1 through Mar. 31).

6, 454 338

6, 792

167

* Annual benefit at Brownlee and Oxbow with coordinated operation amounts to 44 average megawatts.

TABLE II-B.-1964-65 operating year-System prime power capability 1

Coordinated operation:

Main Columbia River system..

Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon..

Total___

Independent operation of Brownlee:

Main Columbia River system..

Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon___

Total..

Benefit from coordination 2

1 Average capability during storage drawdown season (September 1 through March 31).

Average megawatts

6, 512 710

7, 222

6, 449 563

7, 012

210

• Annual benefit at Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon with coordinated operation amounts to 47 aver age megawatts.

IDAHO POWER CO.-LOADS AND RESOURCES WITH INTEGRATED BROWNLEE REGULATIONS

TABLE III-B.-1962-63, 1941-42 hydro with Brownlee regulations

TABLE IV-B.-1964-65, 1941-42 hydro with Brownlee regulation

[In megawatts]

July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June

636 626 582 507 510 516 538 520 506 529 598

628

487

Total hydro..... 1, 334 1,398 1,377 1, 468 1,508 1, 506 1, 506 1, 449 1,349 1,441 1,419
Sulus...

1.418

555 576 765 785 774 750 736 666 714 604

5.59

IDAHO POWER Co.-LOADS AND RESOURCES

LETTER OF SENATOR JAMES E. MURRAY TO DR. WILLIAM

A. PEARL, ADMINISTRATOR, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

WILLIAM A. PEARL,

JANUARY 3, 1958.

Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oreg.

DEAR DR. PEARL: Thank you for the information transmitted to me on November 6, 1957. I find upon examination of it that no consideration appears to have been given in any of the negotiations which so far have transpired to the furnishing of power to the rural electric cooperatives and Government purchasers in the southern Idaho area. Do you conceive that the preference principles in the Bonneville Power Act have no application to this type of situation? I would also like to receive from you an elaboration or explanation of one of the exhibits entitled "A Method of Settlement." This exhibit purports to be an extension for a median water year of the method of settlement between Idaho Power and Bonneville of winter storage for summer energy. If I read this exhibit correctly, the item entitled, "Integration Energy Charge to Idaho, 855,560,000 times 0.4" is an arithmetical expression of the concept that 21⁄2 kilowatt-hours of Bonneville Power is to be exchanged for 1 kilowatthour of power generated by the Idaho Power Co. facilities.

I would appreciate hearing from you on these matters at your earliest convenience and if possible by the 20th of January.

Very truly yours,

JAMES E. MURRAY,

Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.

68