Power Marketing Administrations: Background and Current Issues

Power Marketing Administrations:
Background and Current Issues
Nic Lane
Analyst in Environment and Resources Management
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The U.S. Department of Energy operates four regional power marketing
administrations (PMAs) — the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the
Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), the Southwestern Power Administration
(SWPA), and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). These agencies all
operate on the principle of selling wholesale electric power with preference given to
publicly or cooperatively owned utilities “at the lowest possible rates to consumers
consistent with sound business practices” under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16
U.S.C. §825s). Maintaining competitive rates sufficient to cover operating costs and
repay the federal investment in the hydropower dams and transmission systems amid
drought, legal challenges, and customer pressure for cost reductions are some of the
challenges faced by these agencies, and issues tied to these challenges may come before
Congress.
Introduction
The federal government, through the Department of Energy, operates four regional
power marketing administrations (PMAs), created by statute, the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), the Southwestern
Power Administration (SWPA), and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA),
each operating in a distinct geographic area (see Figure 1).¹ Congressional interest in the
PMAs has included diverse issues such as rate setting, cost and compliance associated

¹ These four PMAs, created between 1937 and 1977, were transferred from the Department of
the Interior to the Department of Energy through the Department of Energy Organization Act of
1977, P.L. 95-91. A fifth, the Alaska Power Administration, established in 1967, was sold under
authorization of P.L. 104-58. The PMAs sell their power, with preference given to publicly or
cooperatively owned utilities, “at the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound
business practices” under the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. §825s). The 1937 Bonneville
Project Act (16 U.S.C. §832c), the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. §485h(c)), and
the aforementioned Flood Control Act are statutes that stipulate preference to public bodies for
the sale of federal power.

with the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.), and
questions of privatization of these federal agencies.
With minor exceptions,² these agencies market the electric power produced by
federal dams operated by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR). PMAs must give preference to public utility districts and cooperatives, and sell
their power at cost-based rates set at the lowest possible rate consistent with sound
business principles. The PMAs serve 60 million Americans in 34 states.³
In general, the PMAs came into being because of the government’s need to dispose
of electric power produced by dams constructed largely for irrigation, flood control, or
other purposes, and to promote small community and farm electrification — that is,
providing service to customers whom it would not have been profitable for a private
utility to serve. Though PMAs were all created to market federal power, and they share
the common mission of providing electricity at cost-based rates with preference to public
customers, each PMA also has unique elements and regional issues that affect its
business. They will be discussed in alphabetical order.
Figure 1. PMA Service Territories

Source: Derived from: [http://www.wapa.gov/regions/pmadmap.htm].
Note: Both WAPA and SWPA market power in Kansas.
Bonneville Power Administration
Created by the Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. §832) just before the
completion of two large dams in the Pacific Northwest — Bonneville Dam in 1938 and
Grand Coulee Dam in 1941 — BPA was the first PMA. Though it serves a smaller
² For example, BPA purchases the entire output of the Columbia Generating Station, a 1,100-
megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant in eastern Washington.
³ See [http://www.wapa.gov/about/faqpm.htm].

geographical area, BPA is on par with WAPA (which serves the largest area) in the size
of its transmission system. The agency constructed and maintains approximately 75% of
the high voltage transmission lines in the Northwest, a system of over 15,000 miles of
transmission line and approximately 300 substations.⁴
BPA differs from the other three PMAs in that it is self-financed: it receives no
federal appropriations. Since passage of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System
Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §838), BPA covers its operating costs through power rates set to
ensure repayment to the Treasury of capital and interest on funds used to construct the
Columbia River power system. BPA also has permanent Treasury borrowing authority,
which it may use for capital on large projects. This money is also repaid, with interest,
through power sales. BPA borrowing authority totals $4.45 billion, through congressional
allocations of $1.25 billion on three separate occasions and a final allocation of $700
million in 2003. The agency intends to use $461 million of its remaining borrowing
authority in FY2007 and $538 million in FY2008.⁵
Current Issues. Two ongoing issues will likely affect the agency over the long
term. The first, a conflict over salmon recovery in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, centers
around the operation of the dams that produce the electricity sold by BPA. Environmental,
fishing, and tribal advocates have sued the federal government successfully, arguing that
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion — the regulatory
document dictating operation of the dams to ensure survival of species listed as threatened
and endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. §§1531,
et seq.) — is inadequate to keep the threatened species from extinction. In addition, some
parties argue that removing four dams on the Snake River in Washington is the only way
to ensure survival of some salmon and steelhead species. The final resolution of the
lawsuit, and the ultimate disposition of the Snake River dams, may not allow BPA to sell
as much electricity, which would likely increase the power rates.
A second issue concerning BPA is the so-called regional dialogue. The regional
dialogue refers to the development of a plan to define BPA’s power supply and marketing
role over the long term. Key elements of the plan are 20-year contracts and a tiered rate
methodology for the period following FY2011, when many of BPA’s current contracts
will expire. A challenge in the regional dialogue is developing a plan that is supported by
BPA’s customers, and that addresses such issues as service to public utilities, service to
direct service industries (such as aluminum smelters), benefits for residential and small⁶
farm customers of investor-owned utilities, and long-term cost controls.
Southeastern Power Administration
SEPA is unique among the four PMAs in two ways. It is the smallest PMA, with just
over 40 employees, and, unlike the other three agencies, SEPA does not operate or

⁴ See [http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/About_BPA/].
⁵ U.S. Department of Energy, FY2008 Congressional Budget Request — Power Marketing
Administrations; vol. 6 (Feb. 2007), p. 231. Hereafter referred to as FY2008 Budget Request.
⁶ Bonneville Power Administration’s Long-Term Regional Dialogue Concept Paper, Sept. 2005.
Available at [http://www.bpa.gov/power/pl/regionaldialogue/09-12-2005_concept_paper.pdf].

maintain any transmission facilities and thus contracts with other utilities for transmitting
the federal power it markets to over 13 million consumers.⁷ SEPA, like the other PMAs
aside from Bonneville (with its self-funding provision), receives annual appropriations
and subsequently repays this funding through power revenues. SEPA’s FY2007
appropriation request was $6.5 million.⁸ Actual appropriations, reflecting an across-the-
board rescission for the Department of Energy, were $6.4 million.⁹
Current Issues. SEPA is contending with reduced generation from one of the
dams whose power it markets. The Wolf Creek Dam, a Corps project on the Cumberland
River in Kentucky, has had a seepage problem since the late 1960s. A $309 million
rehabilitation project is scheduled to run from 2006 to 2014. The Corps of Engineers has
determined it necessary to reduce the water elevation behind the dam, lowering power
generation capability. The dam’s powerhouse has a capacity of 270 MW, or roughly 8%
of SEPA’s total generating capacity.¹⁰
Southwestern Power Administration
SWPA serves over 100 preference customer utilities with over 7 million end-use
customers in the south-central United States. The agency manages nearly 1,400 miles of
high-voltage transmission lines with 24 substations. SWPA returns revenues to the U.S.
Treasury for repayment, with interest, of the federal investment in generation and
transmission facilities and, like SEPA and WAPA, for repayment of annual
appropriations.¹¹ SWPA requested an appropriation of $30.4 million in the President’s¹²
FY2008 budget. Appropriations, reflecting a Department of Energy across-the-board
rescission, were $30.2 million.¹³
Current Issues. SWPA had been challenged by low water conditions recently. It
has a rain-based water supply — rather than one that is snow-based, like the mountain
snowpack water supply of WAPA and BPA — and sells power from a comparatively
small reservoir system which stores that water. As of December 2006, the agency had
been operating through 21 months of drought. It was forced to call upon a continuing
fund in the summer of 2006 to cover the cost of power purchases brought about by
drought-reduced generation. Continued dryness in the area would keep SWPA struggling
to purchase the power allocated for delivery to its customers. Generation figures were
closer to normal through the remainder of FY2007, and to date, FY2008 generation has¹⁴

been better than the drought period as well.
⁷ See [http://www.sepa.doe.gov/Overview/?c=2].
⁸ FY2008 Budget Request, p. 3.
⁹ P.L. 110-161.
¹⁰ See [http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/WolfCreek/].
¹¹ See [http://www.swpa.gov/about.htm].
¹² FY2008 Budget Request, p. 3.
¹³ P.L. 110-161.
¹⁴ Southwester Power Administration: Update, Oct.-Dec. 2007, p. 6. See [http://www.swpa.gov/
(continued...)

During the drought period of 2006, access by SWPA to the continuing fund was
initially denied by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and some Members of
Congress felt OMB had reinterpreted its policy in granting access to the fund.¹⁵ Continued
drought could force SWPA to request access to the fund in FY2007. Additionally, a
proposal in the FY2008 Congressional Budget Request would require all of the PMAs,
except for Bonneville, to recover any expenditure from their continuing funds from
ratepayers within one year. These issues may raise the same OMB policy questions for
the 110^th Congress.
Western Area Power Administration
Created by the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), WAPA
is the newest and largest of the PMAs. WAPA’s service area covers 1.3 million square
miles, and its power — transmitted by a high voltage grid over 17,000 miles long —
serves customers in 15 western states. Like the other PMAs, WAPA’s electricity comes
from federal dams operated by the Corps and BOR. However, it also sells power provided
by the International Boundary and Water Commission and markets the United States’

24.3% share (547 megawatts) of the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station in Arizona.

In addition to the types of public bodies traditionally served as preference customers by
the other PMAs, WAPA has developed a policy to give preference to Native American
tribes regardless of their utility status.¹⁶ For FY2008, the agency made a budget request
of $201.0 million.¹⁷ Actual appropriations, reflecting an across-the-board rescission for
the Department of Energy, were $228.9 million.¹⁸
Current Issues. An issue of importance to WAPA is its role in relieving
transmission congestion within its marketing area. There are a number of constrained
transmission paths in the West whose limited capacity to transfer power may reduce the
ability of utilities to serve electric loads on a seasonal or ongoing basis. Examples are the
main transmission link between northern and southern California called Path 15, and the
transmission corridor between southeastern Wyoming and northeastern Colorado known
as TOT 3. While WAPA does not currently have resources to fund construction of new
lines or upgrades to these congestion points, the agency is interested in working
collaboratively with other affected parties to resolve the problems.¹⁹ WAPA has expertise
in transmission design and construction planning, land acquisition, and environmental
assessments and may contribute these resources to transmission upgrade projects in the
West. Under P.L. 110-161, Congress appropriated approximately $30 million more than
the Administration requested for WAPA construction, rehabilitation, and O&M funding.

¹⁴ (...continued)
PDFs/SWPA_OctDec_Update_2007.pdf].
¹⁵ See [http://www.house.gov/list/press/mo08_emerson/pr_060620.html], and [http://www.house.
gov/list/press/ok03_lucas/continuingfund.html ].
¹⁶ See [http://www.wapa.gov/about/faqpm.htm].
¹⁷ FY2008 Budget Request, p.3.
¹⁸ P.L. 110-161.
¹⁹ 70 Fed. Reg. 69338 (Nov. 15, 2005).

In the President’s FY2006 budget request, WAPA, SEPA, and SWPA proposed an
alternative to the current method of appropriations that provides for their operating
expenses. The FY2006 budget proposal included a plan to reclassify receipts to allow
these PMAs to fund their program direction and their operation and maintenance (O&M)
expenses through offsetting collections, also known as net-zero appropriations.²⁰ The
PMAs currently deposit receipts into the Treasury and Congress appropriates general
Treasury funds to the PMAs for these expenses. Reclassifying the PMA’s receipts in this
way would make them discretionary budget items (they are now mandatory), putting them
on the same side of the ledger as PMA appropriations.²¹ An effect of this change may be
a reduction in reallocation of PMA appropriations to other efforts, because the subsequent
incoming receipts would be reduced by a similar amount. Congress did not agree to this
change for FY2006. The proposal was not reported for FY2008, but a renewed proposal
to change to a net-zero appropriations approach to PMA operations funding may be an
issue for the 110^th Congress.

²⁰ U.S. Department of Energy, FY2006 Congressional Budget Request — Power Marketing
Administrations, vol. 6 (Feb. 2005).
²¹ Telephone discussion with Jack Dodd, Western Area Power Administration Assistant
Administrator, Power Marketing Liaison Office, Washington, DC, on Dec. 4, 2006.