|
<br />ll.
<br />
<br />~'=C:l'"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />:-:..-;~,
<br />
<br />160
<br />
<br />PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. 15
<br />
<br />161
<br />
<br />1994]
<br />
<br />GRAND CANYON PROTECTION ACT
<br />
<br />by the year 2000.166 The Council's 1991 power plan also addresses the
<br />other energy resources that are prioritized by statute, with an overall goal
<br />of acquiring the least-costly, most environmentally responsible resources
<br />first.I61
<br />The Northwest Power Act also promotes efficiency by providing that
<br />BPA customers will pay all the necessary costs (including those related to
<br />fish and wildlife conservation) to produce, transmit, and conserve resources
<br />to meet the region's power requirements.lell Funding for the Northwest
<br />Power Planning Council comes from BPA's receipts and, therefore, the
<br />costs of protecting and restoring the Northwest salmon fishery are treated
<br />as a cost of doing business-internalized to the CQnsumers of hydroelectric
<br />power.1811 Because BPA's customers are not insulated from the cost of the
<br />program, an incentive is created to conserve electricity.
<br />Unfortunately>_(~~.GCPA~ does not go as far as the Northwest Power
<br />ACt in:prombting efficiency. F~;st, section 18071'70 provides that the cost of
<br />EIS preparation, scientific research, and long-term monitoring are
<br />nonreimbursable, and will therefore be borne by federal-taxpayers rather
<br />than the project beneficiaries, i.e., Western's customers who benefit from
<br />obtaining)ow~ost,electJjcity.~'l'1 This provision is C9n,tro~ersia,l,because it
<br />vi?!~~~ :f~_lJl:policy .th~~~.~PJ1~~g_~~~J~~i~[~~.:~- ~~S~Yi~rQl1-
<br />mental_study costs.1':'! Ty'~~~O~:~~!~~1'!~JS~':_~{)4e-
<br />examine the issue to amenaJ:Qe legislation so that project l>enetlclanes bear'
<br />the cost of envirohm:griiat'prot'edion';173 ~he controversy stems from the
<br />view that Western's rates already encourage energy consumption rather
<br />than conservation and that section 1807 is just another in a long line of
<br />subsidies.114
<br />A second failing of the Act exists in the replacement power provision
<br />of section 1809. This section calls for the Secretary of Energy, in
<br />consultation with others, to identify economically and technically feasible
<br />methods of replacing lost power generation at Glen Canyon Dam.
<br />However, no priority is given todemand-sidemanagement, Le., controll.ing
<br />the level of electricity demand, as a means to replace lost capacity, In fact,
<br />the only option mentioned is an investigation into the feasibility of
<br />
<br />modifying the transmission system in the Westsothat Hoover Dam may be
<br />used to supply lost generating capacity.l'l'& A mandate for a review of
<br />conservation technologies would certainly n,ot have been without precedent
<br />considering the provisions of the Northwest Power Act a decade earlier,
<br />Demand-side management programsl':'8 are being implemented
<br />throughout the United States with about 50% of the nation's largest
<br />utilities now engaging in such activities.l'l"l' Integrating demand-side
<br />alternatives with traditional supply-side strategies enables utilities to offer
<br />energy services that Simultaneously maximize customer service while
<br />allowing for efficient and profitable utility operations.l18 Demand-side
<br />management measures are of three types: ~l) energy conservation activi-
<br />ties, (2) load management, and (3) fuel switching.1'l'9 Energy conservation
<br />measures can provide peak resources through the use of more efficient
<br />equipment typically used during the peak period, e.g., air conditioners.l811
<br />Load management can also provide peak capacity byshiftingdemarld from
<br />one time period to another,l8l This technique can flatten out the energy
<br />demand (load) curve, thus reducing the need for peak hydropower and
<br />allowing more demand to be met by baseload coal-fired generators. Fuel
<br />switching, the last of the three demand-side management measures listed,
<br />can directly reduce the need for generated electricity through theslJbstitu-
<br />tion of other energy resources such as natural gas or solar energy.182
<br />Only time will teU, but there is a distinct possibility that demand-side
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />175. GCPAS 1809.
<br />176. Demand-side management programs are th~ that enable a utility to reliably affect the
<br />level or pattern of demand for energy services. Bruce Driver & ChrisShaver. Environmental Defense
<br />Fund, Status ReportonAlternative EnergyStrategy2 (AprilS, 1993) (unpublished man\1Script,onfile
<br />withauthor).Suchprogramsarebutonefacetofanalternativeenergystra!-tg:rthatendeavorstomove
<br />away from traditional supply-side planning which only lakes into a<:x;(lu-'": CQIIland nllclear rescurce5.
<br />Another aspect of alternative energyslrategy isan evaluation of renewable resources, whieh include
<br />geothermal, wind,solar,and biomass possil>>]jlies. Becauseofooncernsover reliability, these resources,
<br />at present, are limited in their ability to be used as ba~[oad capacity. Renewable resources may,
<br />however, prove t(I be useful in meeting peak power demands and thus alleviate the pressure to use
<br />hydropowerfacilitiessolelyaspeakpowerproducers.Thekeytothistransitionisashowingthatoveral1
<br />COSIS. including externalities, of using such renewable resources to meet peak demand a~ less than
<br />those COSt$ associated with the use of hydropower units. Set generally id.
<br />177. WESTERN Au" POWER ADMINISTRATION. THE E:-IERGY SERVICES ApPRO"CH TO
<br />UTIliTY PuNNING: A GUIDE TO POUC'iM"KERS (Jan. /989) (hereinafter GtJll1t: FOR POUCYIoMK-
<br />ERS]. Utilities ill New England, New York, and the ?acific Northwest plan to meet at least 20% of their
<br />future enetgydel'l1aml throoghdemand-side managemenl programs. Additionally, Calirornia expects
<br />to use efficiency standards, government programs. and utility demand-side management programs to
<br />meet 75'1 ofplanneddectricityresourceaddilionsduringthe 19905. Driver & Shaver,SUprQllote 176,
<br />at8. /
<br />]78. GUIDE fOR POLlCYM"KERS, supra note 117, at 3.
<br />179, Driver &: Shaver, supra note 176, at 3.
<br />180. Id.
<br />181. ~ ,
<br />182. Id.
<br />
<br />166. POWER PLAN, supra note 135, at 2.
<br />167. See (d. at 31-47.
<br />J68, 16 U.5.C. 11839(4).
<br />169. WILKINSON,$Upra note 123, at 210.
<br />170. See supra note 116 and aecompanying text.
<br />171. 138 CONG. REC. 517,666 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1992) (statement of~. McCain).
<br />172. Id.
<br />173. Congre.JS PaS$es GrandCanyon Proreclio/r kt. COLORADO PUTEAlJ ADVQCA.TE (Grand
<br />Canyon Trust, flagstaff, Ariz.), Fall 1992. at 4.
<br />174. Id.
<br />
<br />
<br />~'~vil;'"
<br />}'~\"".
<br />
|