Date: 1982-06-09
Speaker: PETER JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: S

Administrator. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland. Oreg. DEAR MR. JOHNSON* I write to summarize my concerns over the GarrisonWest siting of Bonnevilles proposed powerlines. Rather then repeat earlier. more specific remarks here. I request that our earlier correspondence be included in your hearing record and that BPAs siting decisions respond to the concerns I have raised separately in correspondence over the past year. Instead. I will here summarize what I believe to be the most important criteria for siting these lines: 1. Recent changes in the forecasted power demand for the Pacific Northwest raise questions about the continued need for power generated by Colstrip Units 3 and 4. The changes will require a new look at the extent to which Bonnevilles further involvement with these lines Is necessary. As part of the EIS process. Bonneville should thoroughly review the "no federal line" alternative. Bonneville should thoroughly examine whether or not there is at this time a need for BPA to construct portions of this line. With the many demands being placed upon BPAs resourcesincluding conservation. fish habitat enhancement. and Treasury repaymentsyour agency has an overwhelming responsibility to avoid projects that are not clearly essential. If Bonneville cannot determine a clear case of existing need for federal construction. Bonneville should advise the private consortium constructing Colstrip 3 and 4 of their option to construct these lines themselves or to await the establishment of such a need once the Regional Power Planning Council has developed its plan. 2. Bonneville should respond to all siting concerns raised by the State of Montana. I am convinced that had BPA recognized the Montana Major Facility Siting Act as the governing authority for line siting from the outset. manyperhaps allof todays problems with line siting could have been avoided. Any decision made by Bonneville at this time should reflect the intent and spirit as well as the letter of the recent court decision. BPA should cooperate fully with the State of Montana in making all further siting decisions. Nothing in federal law precludes full cooperation with the State. 3. The specific concerns of local residents should be paramount. Line siting costs should be paid by the consumers of the electricity being transmitted by these lines. Impact aid authority should be used flexibly to mitigate all line impacts. It is not adequate for Bonneville to base siting decisions primarily upon cost factors. The question is not "how much" the lines cost. but who should pay the costs associated with the line construction. I am particularly concerned about local residents whose lives and property would be affected by the lines and yet who are not entitled to payments under Bonnevilles existing compensation policies. Every unmitigated local impact means shifting line costs from electricity consumers to local residents. According. BPA should relocate. redesign. and. if necessary. bury the lines to avoid high impacts. If Bonneville finds such activities to be costprohibitive. Bonneville should provide adequate compensation to affected residents and local governmentseven if these residents and governments do not have property within the lines rightsofway. If Bonneville does not wish to use its discretionary authority to do this. it must return construction to private enterprise immediately. 4. Since Bonneville. as a federal agency. has agreed to build these lines. it is reasonable to expect that these lines be located upon federal lands to the maximum extent possible. 5. Bonneville should closely review all local initiatives and proposals for center line routing. I am particularly concerned about reports from several effected communities that local concerns are not being considered adequately. I will take this opportunity tb make clear for the decision record that especially with regard to the Maxville. Miller Creek. St. Regis and Thompson Falls areas my repeated requests for more and Improved meetings between local residents and Bonneville personnel have met with only limited success. Further. I have had repeated indications that Bonneville has not to date responded to particular routing ideas and problems raised by local residents. I repeatedly have requested that in these and other problem areas Bonneville adopt a policy that requires briefing local residents on the particulars of the draft EIS. then helping the residents organize and present their responses. and only then. after adequate time for review and response. holding the formal EIS hearings. Bonneville has strongly resisted this request. Furthermore. local residents have repeatedly registered both procedural and substantive complaints concerning the line siting prQcess. Recently. it required intervention from my office to secure Bonnevilles agreement to accept precomment period written comments offered by local residents as a part of the hearing record. Bonneville had advised Maxville area residents that residents would need to duplicate and resubmit their earlier comments if these comments were to be considered during the formal EIS process. This Is one of many times when requested and anxious citizen involvement. often combined with congressional intervention. was needed to prod Bonneville into doing what it should have done on its own. In fairness. BPA personnel say such an apparent lack of responsiveness was inadvertent and local concerns will be explored thoroughly. Bonneville has taken a number of steps over the past year to make its process more responsive and its people more available to the public. Nevertheless. it is essential that the final environmental impact statement show clearly and specifically how each of the local concerns and ideas has been addressed. 6. Bonneville should speed its study of potential health and safety impacts of high voltage transmission lines. The Library of Congress review undertaken last year at my request indicated that too little study had been completed to gain confident knowledge of all potential health and safety impacts of such lines. Bonnevilles study should be con. cluded as quickly as possible. its result published. and its recommendations. if any. promptly pursued. Let me restate my dismay with Bonnevilles overall record concerning these powerlines. This record began with Bonnevilles being less than candid in outlining its intentions to Congress. The record continued with Bonnevilles stretching its authority to. or in my opinion beyond. its legal authorization for construction of these lines. Bonneville has fought the State of Montana Instead of cooperating with it. And Bonne. villes siting process. while greatly improved over the past year. has improved only as a result of direct and constant pressure. Even in its Improved state. Bonnevilles siting process is far less than perfect. I appreciate and respect the dedication of many of Bonnevilles personnel who have honestly tried to improve Bonnevilles responsiveness to Montana needs. However. I find myself moving away from support of Bonnevilles historic work in bringing electricity to the Northwest toward a new and deepfelt skepticism of projects Bonneville undertakes. My State is receiving quite an education in the workings of a large. cumbersome federal bureaucracy that intervenes in our lives but seems responsible to no one. I hope the creation of the Regional Power Planning Council becomes a major step forward in making Bonneville more responsible to Montana and to the region. This was the intent of Congress. Further. I hope that all of us have learned from this experience to review more carefully the granting of any Montana permit to construct major facilities such as Colstrip 3 and 4. . The Montana Board of National Resources had no way of knowing that the transmission lines it agreed to as part of the siting of Colstrip 3 and 4 would never be builtthat instead the consortium of utilties led by Montana Power Company would wash its hands of these powerlines at Town. send. Montana. west. In the future. it would seem clear that any permits for major facilities should be made conditional upon the original applicants completion of au the work. And in the future. we must be careful to insure that private utilities and others seeking to construct major projects in our State are held responsible for all of the implications of their projects. For the present. I urge Bonneville to use this last part of its siting process to Improve upon its record In my State. The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted by Congress In an attempt to make federal agencies truly responsive to the citizens they are to serve. In this case. Bonnevilles responsibility is not just to electric consum. ers in the Pacific Northwest. nor just to the consortium of private utilities and the public which these utilities serve. Bonne. villes responsibility is also to each local resident being affected by Its actions. Bonneville should move the lines as necessary to meet local objections. Bonneville should in. ternalize the cost of these lines instead of dumping the burdens of land depreciation and associated impacts on the backs of local residents. Bonneville as a federal agency has a special obligation to cooperatenot to fightwith the government of the State of Montana. With best personal regards. I am Sincerely. MAx BAucus.e