Comment history

BPA considers eastern route for high-voltage line

I would like to first identify myslef as a BPA representative.

In the article above, the Columbian wrote that BPA would select a "preferred alignment" in August. This language could lead people to believe that we are identifying a "preferred alternative route" for the project now, which we are not.

I would like to clarify that following extensive public input -- more than 7,000 comments received -- BPA plans to share information with the public in early August that includes modifications to the existing map. BPA will identify a preferred route at the appropriate stage during the environmental review process.

Doug Johnson, BPA

July 14, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Demonstrators rally against BPA power line plan

I will begin by identifying myself as a representative of BPA. First, I would like to thank the demonstrators who yesterday gathered at the offices BPA leases near Vancouver Mall. They were courteous and respected the wishes of the property owner from whom we lease the space.

Just a couple of points of clarification:

1) The 48 segments currently being considered for this proposed project are a cross section of land on which BPA currently has easement rights (segments 9 and 25 going north to south on the map on our project web site and mile wide study corridors further east that include private property and land owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and large corporations.

2) Condemnation or eminent domain is an option of last resort. We make every possible effort to negotiate with landowners to obtain easement rights on their property.

Doug Johnson

April 30, 2010 at 8:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Power line plan foes air concerns

goldenoldie: BPA encourages the energy efficiency and conservation measures you are referencing and taking upon yourself to do. Those types of efforts have helped us avoid building another high-voltage line in the area for the past 40 years. In fact, BPA is aggressively developing conservation. The Northwest has achieved 3,700 average megawatts of electricity savings through energy efficiency in the last 30 years (enough electricity to power all of Idaho and western Montana). BPA and regional utilities are designing programs to capture over 5,000 aMW of energy efficiency in the next 20 years.

BPA views conservation as a resource. Simply put, if you can meet growing energy demands by conserving and being more energy efficient, you are keeping from adding resources. It's the most economical way to meet demand.

BPA's biggest concern is low water. This year for example, the snow in the mountains, which we rely on to melt over the course of the spring and summer to run over the turbines at the dams is well below normal. While there will be plenty of water for BPA to meet the energy demands of our public customers, there will be far less to sell to other utilities in the Northwest and beyond.

So, energy efficiency and conservation helps keep rates lower. The lack of water can present a challenge.

With regard to milder weather, that should not impact BPA and other Northwest utilities. Remember, when it is mild here it may be very hot or very cold in some other part of the region. Adequate transmission provides the flexibility for those utilities who are generating more energy than they need to market it to utilities in other places who need it.

Doug Johnson

April 29, 2010 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


goldenoldie: sorry I have not replied to your questions on the Columbian I-5 transmission line story. Will post one tomorrow (Thurs., 4/29).

Doug Johnson, BPA

April 28, 2010 at 8:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Power line plan foes air concerns

goldenoldie: I'm glad to participate and provide any information I can about the project and facts surrounding BPA.

The great majority of the power BPA markets from the 31 federal dams and one nuclear plant in the Northwest is used in the Northwest, and the same goes for the power that would be transmitted on a new power line. The driver behind this proposed transmission line is a growing need to distribute power to Northwest customers, including those in Southwest Washington. About 15 percent of BPA's revenue is derived from surplus power sales. Meaning once we meet the demand of public utilites in the Northwest, we can sell additional output of the dams and nuclear plant to Northwest utilities or through our interties to utilities in California, Canada and elsewhere. The revenues from these sales go to keeping our power rates as low as possible.

You might think of the line as similar to a freeway -- most of the traffic, in this case electricity, is moving from place to place within the region. A portion of the traffic does move longer distances and may eventually go out of the region, but that is a minor portion compared to what travels and is consumed within the Northwest

The wind facilities you mention in the Columbia River gorge are a great example of why we are considering adding this line. As I mentioned in my previous post, BPA operates about 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission in the Pacific Northwest.

BPA transmission lines deliver power to our public customers and may be used by other power producers as a means to get energy to their customers. In some instances, investor owned utilities like Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, Avista and others are using our system to interconnect resources like the new wind facilities to get the output to their customers. In some instances, independent power producers are building these wind farms and finding utility customers in the Northwest and beyond to whom the output is delivered.

The line we're proposing to build is necessary to make sure energy gets to local utilities like Cowlitz PUD, Clark PUD and PGE and can handle the additional affect this part of our system will experience from these new power demands.

April 27, 2010 at 11:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Power line plan foes air concerns

I am a representative of BPA. First, I would like to thank Stop Towers Now for the courteous atmosphere at Sunday's meeting. It was another great chance for us to listen to concerns from residents who could be impacted by our proposed project.

I would also like to clear up one inaccuracy in the Stop Towers Now post:

BPA is a not-for-profit federal agency. We are not a profit center. We market the energy produced by the 31 federal dams in the Northwest and one nuclear plant at cost to public utilities in Washington, Oregon, Montana and Idaho. We also operate about 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission in the four states mentioned above.

BPA works to provide the Pacific Northwest low cost, reliable, environmentally responsible electricity recognizing that we are accountable to and want to work collaboratively with Northwest citizens.

Doug Johnson

April 26, 2010 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Punch Is A Punch; Or Is It?

I think at the end you answer most of your own questions. Griner knew as soon as she threw the punch she had crossed a line and collected herself. Blount's continued tantrum and antics after the punch looked too out of control not to be addressed.

In addition, Griner to some degree "retaliated" after she was flung across the lane. I know a punch for this type of rough play is way too strong a response--but in the heat of battle--as you mention, these things happen.

Two games may be a little lenient. However, less than what Blount got in my opinion is appropriate.

On another note, wanted to share with you a recent blog posting on the WCC/Pac 10 vis-a-vis at-large NCAA Tournament bids. Please let me know what you think.

March 6, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )