Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . , <br /> current energy needs in addition to the BPA allocation. Mr. Lieua11en asked <br /> whether, if a project were built and the BPA reduced our allocation, we could go <br /> - back later to BPA if additional power were needed. Mr. Parks responded that no <br /> one knows for sure. They would not be able to look at just one utility being <br /> short, but would need to look at everyone's needs. <br /> Mr. Delay asked, in terms of alternatives and from information in the booklet <br /> showing projected deficits, what kind of time frame and process EWEB is looking <br /> at in pursuing alternative generation or conservation. He also asked how Mr. <br /> Parks sees the'uti1ity participating in the planning process. Mr. Parks <br /> responded that EWEBls planning involves this entire area. The resources being <br /> used now were planned in 1966. There is tremendous planning and cooperation. <br /> Two to ten years would be the time frame for co-generation which would be the <br /> fastest along with "dump hydro." They are still trying to tell people it can be <br /> done but would like to be able to actually go and do it. He feels it is <br /> a gamble to think that nuclear plants will come in on schedule. <br /> Mr. Delay asked whether it is an engineering decision and if there would be <br /> tradeoffs and how the choices would be made. Mr. Parks responded that it is not <br /> a simple engineering decision. They must get the project designed, obtain <br /> preliminary approval and preliminary licenses, and present an entire package <br /> which is acceptable to the public. There are numerous occasions for public <br /> input prior to construction. <br /> Mr. Delay asked what the time line is for the different options. Mr. Parks <br /> responded that four years ago was when it should have started, but they do not <br /> know the ground rules they will be working under. Mr. Delay asked if it were <br /> accurate to say that utilities are in a position to propose several generating <br /> e alternatives if they were not being held up by the Legislature. Mr. Parks <br /> responded that this is the case. Mr. Delay asked if one of the problems might <br /> be possible deficits of materials. Mr. Parks responded that there are all kinds <br /> of materials that can be used. Mr. Delay indicated that he still does not know <br /> exactly what EWEB is planning. Mr. Parks stated that he would be happy to work <br /> further with the council and provide any information they desire. <br /> Mayor Keller said that one reason EWEB opposes the Northwest Power Bill is the <br /> loss of local control. He asked what EWEB is planning to do if this bill <br /> passes. According to the information EWEB has provided, it looks as if there <br /> would be trouble within the next five years. He asked what EWEB planned to do. <br /> Mr. Parks responded that EWEB is concerned, too, and that they will continue <br /> planning as they have done before. If the legislation passes, they would have <br /> to put all the projects in their "hip pocket" as there would be no alternative. <br /> Ms. Miller indicated that she did not have a clear picture of how the alterna- <br /> tive projects fit together to meet the demand for electricity. She stated that <br /> some figures do not seem to be available. If wind turbine projects do not prove <br /> to be feasible, she wanted to know what part they play in the total plan. She <br /> wanted to know what could be used to replace the energy that was to be derived <br /> from them. Mr. Parks stated that to provide such information he would need <br /> to spend a good deal of time with the council as he did with the EWEB Board <br /> e <br /> 7/30/80--5 <br />