ML17276B071
| ML17276B071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1981 |
| From: | WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17276B070 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202180287 | |
| Download: ML17276B071 (26) | |
Text
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 1981 ANNUAL REPORT
1/Financial Highlights of 1981 3/President ofBoard's Message 7/Managing Director's Overview 15/Construction Progress 17/Treasury Activities 21/Accomplishments since August 1980 23/Participants, Members &
Joint Owners (on the cover)
The Supply System is taking every precaution possible to ensure that its plants are the safestin the world. The dome on the containment building at Project 1 has 11 layers of steel reinforcing bar, which willbe permeated with enough concrete to form a solidfour-and-a-half-foot-thick shell.
(at rightj It's the 2,142 people who work for the Supply System who willmake tomorrow's energy supply a reality for the Northwest. The 379-person technical staff has more than 7,300 total years of technical experience including more than 4,500in the nuclear field.
Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
Construction Projects Long-Term Revenue Bond Sales Par Values Number of Issues Borrowing Cost (%)
Total Long-Term Revenue Bonds Outstanding Outstanding as of June 30 Annualized Interest Expense Borrowing Cost (%)
Interest Earned Interest on Investments Annual Rate of Return (%)
WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-3 WNP-4/5 S
410 S
200 S
225
~
S 760 2
1 1
4 9.76 9.33 10.67 11.01 Total S1,595 8
10.43 7.43 6.90 7.43 8.35 7.65 S
35 S
35 S
30 S
67 S
167 13 30 13,.11 12 28 11.55 12.29 S1,455 S1,459 S
905 S2,250 S6,069 S
108 S
101 S
67 S
188 S
464 Financial Highlights of 1981
($ in Millions)
New power resources are needed to ensure the continued growth of key Northwest industries like agriculture ones that provide essential commodities to national and international markets.
Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
The Northwest has a forward-looking energy plan at a time when there is not even a national commitment to one. The reason the farsightedness and wisdom of more than 115 utilities serving eight West-ern states which foresaw the need for new power resources long before regional plan-ning was a governmental buzzword.
Together, these same utilities are financing and constructing five nuclear power plants in the state of Washington. The organization they created, the Washington Public Power Supply System, was the first Joint Operat-ing Agency formed in the country.
gi '
~
0
- Jy President of the Board's Message Today, the participants and joint owners in the Supply System plants include all sectors in the power industryboth public and private. It acts for 32 municipalities, 26 public utility districts, 52 rural electrification cooperatives and five investor-owned utilities.
Supply System projects will provide about 20 percent of the Northwest's base-load electrical energy capacity or 6,080 meg-awatts of energy within this decade. This impressive figure does not count the 860 megawatts of safe, cost-effective nuclear power which for 15 years have been produced by the Supply System's Hanford Generating project.
More than eight and a half million people in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, Utah and Nevada will Its
~+
f r
~P ')
Decisions remaining as to continued con-struction of our plants will in turn affect how much food, lumber and paper products, aluminum, chemicals and other goods will go to national and world markets. All these Northwest industries are dependent upon the successful completion of our five projects.
use power from Supply System projects. The importance of these projects to the North-west is evident in the June 1981 Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) report which predicts a 2,100-megawatt power shortage by 1990. The shortfall occurs even under the premise that all five Supply System projects are commer-cially operating by 1987.
A coupling deviceis the essential link between the turbine and generator at Project 2just as the utilities of the Northwest are the essential point of contact between the Supply System and the people who willuse its electricity.
k t
"'~.'UshtflgtonPubl'c Pot".ct SU/.7I;'Su,>ten) i98i AnnU;il,i'd~I;'."t
However, balanced against the obvious need for power are the economic realities of soaring inflation and the cost of financing.
Both hit hard at high-technology projects.
Our five plants are no exception.
with our accomplishments as we are with Grand Cou'lee Dam.
This is a time when tough business deci-sions are necessary for survival. The Supply System Board arrived at one of those difficultjudgments in June, when it opted to slow construction on two of the five pro-jects. The region's power entities are actively involved in decisions about those projects approving actions to temporarily resolve a cash-flow problem and actively seeking alternative financing arrangements to spread both cost and risk more broadly throughout the region.
Stanton H. Cain President of Supply System Board Leonard M. Allen Lewis County PUD Harold F. Nelson Grant County PUD Marion C. Babb Klickitat County PUD Dbnald R. Clayhold Benton County PUD Larry Nickel City of Ellensburg Paul J. Nolan City of Tacoma Other Supply System Board Members Approval of the $23.8 billion Supply System budget by the Board of Directors is affirma-tion that we need these projects for the Northwest to continue to be a robust, growing region. This need is underscored by the substantial efforts of the Northwest's utilities, governors and industries to search for new ways to continue construction of the projects.
Electric energy has always been a catalyst for our growth. The debate about Grand Coulee Dam gives us some perspective on this. People argued that we should not build it because we'd never need the power. They also said, as I recall, that it would be too expensive. Fifty years later we hear the same arguments. Yet I'm convinced that 50 years from now people will be as impressed Kenneth R. Cochrane Franklin County PUD Ed Fischer Clark County PUD A. E. Fletcher Clallam County PUD Rolf E. Jemtegaard
'Skamania County PUD Robert O. Keiser Chelan County PUD William G. Kuehne Ferry County PUD Thomas M. Logston City ol Richland David Lee Myers Wahkiakum County PUD Hal Norman Pacific County PUD C. Stanford Olsen Snohomish County PUD Howard Prey Douglas County PUD Joe Recchi Seattle City Light Howard B. Richman Cowfitz County PUD Roger Sparks Kittitas County PUD Edwin W. Taylor Afason County PUD John J. Welch Grays Harbor County PUD
The 496-foot-tall cooling tower at Project 3in Satsop is like a 35-story chimney designed to exhaust excess heat that cannot be used during plant operation to generate additional electricity. Its shell contains enough concrete to construct a 20-foot-wide driveway that is eight miles long.
Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
I'e spent the greater part of my adult life working with nuclear power.
I believe that it' a viable energy optionfor the Northwest and for the nation. We'e doing everything possible at the Supply System to ensure that it does succeed.
Every aspect of our business has undergone careful scrutiny since I became Managing Director in August 1980. Since our perfor-mance can reflect upon an entire industry, we are compelled to set the highest manage-ment, quality assurance and construction standards.
', -/s~,
s i(are Managing Dtrector's Overview All the changes in the Supply System management and its philosophy are rooted in a common goal: To complete our nuclear projects as quickly as possible and at the lowest cost.
To make construction progress a reality, a new team of director-level managers was recruited from the nuclear and construction industries. They include three program directors who have a total of more than 60 years of technical and nuclear experience.
Each is assigned to a construction site:
Project 2, Projects 1/4 or Projects 3/5. This new decentralized approach makes each program director accountable for perfor-mance against a baseline budget and schedule.
I also appointed a special independent engineering task force of five nationally known executive engineers. This team was asked to make a comprehensive evaluation of construction management at the Supply Sytem. As a result of its recommendations, we have ended the practice of integrated management with our construction mana-gers and have clarified the roles of the Supply System, the architect-engineers and the construction managers.
In January, the Supply System delegated construction management to national experts in the nuclear field. The Bechtel Power Corporation, the country's most expe-rienced nuclear construction firm, assumed management of construction and pre-startup activities for the three projects at Hanford.
EBASCO was given undivided responsibility
Rising 12 stories above the Southeastern Washington desert is the Supply System's Project 2where more than 3,000 Supply System and contractor employees are accelerating their efforts toward a 1983 fuel load.
L, WositIngton Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
for construction management at Projects 3 and 5 at Satsop.
Contracting activities were centralized under a single director to assure greater consis-tency in contracting. Selected contracts at all five projects are being realigned to streamline the total number of contractors wherever possible and to provide incentives to complete the job on schedule.
The Supply System also gained the freedom to select completion contractors based on an evaluation of their ability to perform rather than on a competitive bid. This was made possible when the Washington Legislature passed a law giving the Supply System the right to negotiate a contract for completion of a nuclear plant once a project was 80 percent complete. In August, Bechtel Power Corporation was selected as the completion contractor for Project 2.
The legislature also passed a law allowing negotiated bond sales, giving the Supply System greater flexibilityto react to market conditions. This important legislation is more fully explained in the Treasury section of this report.
Not only did we gain important new busi-ness avenues and support from the legisla-ture, but labor also demonstrated that it is interested and supportive of our efforts. An example is the labor stabilization agreement that was signed in February at Satsop.
It precludes a site shutdown during a labor dispute at Projects 3 and 5. Disagreements would be arbitrated at the local level, with no picket lines and no lockouts. A five-and-a-half month labor dispute was resolved at Hanford and negotiations are under way for a labor stabilization agreement for Projects 1,2and4.
Renegotiation of the International Brother-hood of Electrical Workers/Supply System collective bargaining unit agreements cover-ing nearly 550 power operators and admi-nistrative employees was completed without disruption. The new three-year agreements cover approximately 25 percent of Supply System employees.
Progress was also made with two crucial federal agencies. The Bonneville Power Administration, which underwrites the power production of Projects 1, 2 and 3, has assigned a resident manager to the Supply System to improve communications.
Its new administrator, Peter Johnson, has also pub-liclystated his intention to accelerate regional power forecasts, which are impor-tant to the credibility of the Supply System's endeavors.
.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission com-mended the Supply System for its "commit-ment to quality" after a 500-hour audit of Projects 3 and 5 and gave the go-ahead for safety-related work to resume at Project 2.
The April auditthe most intensive since work began at Projects 3 and 5,in 1977 revealed no major safety problems. NRC
Some of the craltsworkers at the Supply System's three Hanford projects began their careers on the Manhatten Projectin the 1940s. Their precision work is now evidentin the peaceful use ofthe atomto generate electricity for more than eight and a half millionpeople in eight Western states.
E E
~ ~ c 10 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
investigators issued five minor noncom-pliance notices, only two of which related to actual construction. Changes were initiated to resolve all five. The audit satisfies new NRC regulations instituted after the Three Mile Island incident in 1979.
When the NRC removed its stop-work order at Project 2, it cleared the way for comple-tion of the state's first fully commercial nuclear power plant. The safety-related work had been on hold since July 1980. The NRC sanction to resume work was given after the adequacy of previously installed equipment was reverified. The reverification program included an exhaustive review of all documentation on procurement pro-
- cesses, material, personnel and quality assurance.
Added emphasis has been given to both quality assurance and safety standards by establishing director-level positions for those two areas of concern. New Supply System quality assurance policies standard-ize procedures for all the projects, assuring that all current and future work will be properly documented and will meet con-struction specifications. To ensure com-pliance with regulatory safety standards, the Supply System established a highly quali-fied, independent nuclear safety evaluation group. A Corporate Nuclear Safety Review Committee was also formed to review major safety items and to advise senior staff on safety matters.
The final major hurdle in achieving realistic management objectives was establishing integrated engineering and construction schedules for all five projects. The five-month estimating process began in January and involved hundreds of Supply System, construction manager and contractor employees.
It was the most thorough esti-mating effort ever undertaken at the Supply System. The estimate was based on histori-cal data from all five Supply System projects as well as pertinent information from other U.S. and foreign generating projects.
The budgeting process used the same basis actual quantities af materials speci-fied on engineering drawings and installa-tion rates derived from historical data. The result was the first comprehensive estimate of funds needed to complete all five plants.
These numbers have never before been developed with such accuracy.
The result of this scrutiny over the last 15 months is that the direction of the Supply System has changed dramatically. There is perhaps no greater evidence of this than the June decision to slow construction at two of our five nuclear projects.
This judgment of our Board of Directors was based on the reality that funding five projects at an estimated cost of $23.8 billion presents a very, very difficultproblem in today's financial market. This is a period of uncertainty not only for our funding, but for
The secrets to a smooth runningpower plant are continuous maintenance and attention to detailreasons why the Hanford Generating Project has had a record of nearly 100 percent availability for more than 15 years.
When steamis available from the government's N reactor, HGPis ready to convertit into electricity for Northwest consumers.
a 12 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
funding of similar kinds of projects through-out the United States.
The decision to slow construction was made more difficultbecause our commitment to completion of the projects was manifest in the construction records being set at those very plants in the months prior to the slowdown.
I cannot predict at this time what the economic risks of slowing construction at Projects 4 and 5 will be.
I do know that
-the issue of the need for their power must be resolved at the earliest possible date so that the impact on the public is as small as possible.
And we choose to manage our organization by design rather than default. Our choice is to operate the Supply System in the most economically responsible manner possible-and to help the Northwest utilities meet their commitments for the future. We will demonstrate that the nuclear option is one that this nation cannot afford to abandon.
Robert L. Ferguson Managing Director "Let me say that I took this job to succeed...
and we can succeed."
Robert L. Ferguson Managing Director in a speech to the Supp/y System Board of Directors May 29, 1981 The task of completing five nuclear plants is massive but achieveable.
Our new produc-tivity records reflect the stability that we have been able to bring to labor, contract-ing, engineering and financing. The efforts of Supply System staff and construction workers must remain focused on completing these projects on schedule and within budget.
u~<
It is important to remember that while others merely discuss the feasibility of alternative energy sources, we are moving forward with a proven technology. The Northwest needs power resources within this decade and our projects are the only near-term alternative to meet those needs.
We recognize that these are crucial times for high technology and for the power industry. Yet it is imperative to remember in these critical times, that we have choices.
~V
)
1
The 447-ton reactor vessel being loweredinto the Project 3 containment building at Satsop weighs more than two Boeing 747s.
The August lift culminated the component's 8,000-milejourney from Tennessee.
"v' Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
Supply System construction gained momentum during the last year with record-breaking production rates and completion of major milestones.
Projects 1 and 4 productivity records were set this spring. Completion percentages for April through June 1981 were 4.6 percent at Project 1 and 5.5 percent at Project 4.
Not only were these production numbers the highest in Supply System history, but mate-rials were installed below anticipated costs.
One of the major construction milestones finished ahead of schedule was the six mechanical-draft cooling towers for Projects 1 and 4 at Hanford. These towers, the largest of their kind in the United States, were completed in February, within budget and well in advance of operation. A 115-cubic-yard concrete placement completed the roof at the Project 1 seven-story general services building in May, three weeks ahead of schedule.
Another major milestone at Project 1 was reached on March 28 when the world' largest mobile crane hoisted the 376-ton domed top of the containment building. This structure, 180 feet from its underground base to its top, is the project's last major building to be enclosed.
The most apparent construction progress at Project 3 is its 500-foot cooling tower. In November, workers placed the final concrete on the massive shell.
Construction Progress I
I By July, a large shipment of reactor equipment for Project 3 had arrived at the construction site after an 8,000-mile journey from the fac-tory in Tennessee.
The 2,000-ton shipment included the reactor vessel and two steam generators which were placed in the contain-ment building in late August, ahead of schedule.
The work force at Project 2the Supply System nuclear plant nearest operation virtually completed the heavy construction phase. A systems completion phase is now under way in preparation for fuel loading and operation.
15
The difference between the total bud-geted costs of S23.789 billion for all five nuclear power projects-and the S19.335 billionin the chart (at right) reflects S1.909 billionin funding from investor-owned utilitiesand S2.545bil-lionin funding from the Bonneville Power Administration.
~
~
o r
4 op 4
or+3
(
I C
WNP-1 S1.455 S905 WNP-3 s1.495'NP-2 S3.190 SUPPLY SYSTEM FUNDING REQUIREMENTS June 30, 1981 lS in Millions)
Financing Complete Supply System Funding Requirement k
~
\\
WNP-4
&5 S2,250
~ '.
St 1,179 Wk geP kkkk Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
Recent financing accomplishments epito-mize the rationale behind the creation of the Supply System the financial and economic advantages of the joint agency concept.
In FY81, in the face of high interest rates and declining availability of funds for public power projects, the Supply System raised
$ 1.595 billion.
These funds were generated in eight issues approximately $200 million every 24 business days. The overall interest cost during the year was 9.90 percent for the three net-billed projects and 11.01 percent for Projects 4 and 5.
In the nine-month period from July 1980 to April 1981, the Board of Directors approved the sale of 26 percent of all Supply System bonds issued since 1973, when the first of the five projects was initiated. These sales were realized at a time when yields on long-term municipal bonds reached their all-time post World War II highs.
The Supply System was the country's first joint operating agency when it was estab-lished in 1957. Since its beginning, more than 40 other state and regional joint power authorities have been created. Thirteen have now entered the market place for construc-tion funds. Since January 1973, these joint operating agencies have issued
$ 11.3 billion of securities. The Supply System alone accounts for $ 6.1 billion, or 54 percent, of that total outstanding.
In addition to competing with other joint operating agencies for funds, the Supply System was at a marketing disadvantage, as it was limited to selling its bonds under a competitive bidding procedure. The Supply System could only negotiate sales after formally rejecting all competitive bids of a like issue.
From 1973 until 1980, the Supply System sold 42 issues using the competitive bid process.
By comparison, only one other joint operating agency has sold an issue competi-tively during this timefor $ 65 million. The Supply System opted for its first negotiated bond sale in April of 1980. The record high interest rates prevailing during the sched-uled sale for Project 4/5 bonds created a
situation in which the Supply System chose to reject the single bid and enter into a negotiated sale. These successful negotia-tions resulted in $3.8 million of additional proceeds and $27.5 million in interest savings over the life of the issue.
To gain additional benefits of a fully nego-tiated sale where the price, discount, size of the issue and structuring of the bonds are negotiable the Supply System and its par-ticipating utilities entered into a program aimed at securing legislation to grant the
. Supply System the option of using either competitive or negotiated sales. The Washington State Legislature granted this option in 1981. The Supply System subse-quently selected a team of managing under-writers, composed of national and regional investment and commercial banking firms Treasury Activities
(leftj In the nine-month period from July 1980 to April1981, the Supply System sold 28.2 percent of allits bonds issued since 1973.
(rightj The annual interest charges reflect the effect of risinginterest rates.
Ul D
0 Q
LU V) 4 M 'QVJ 0>>
S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1 26.2%
Added in FY '81 tn U
CC zO~
V) LU LU 0 go I 2 ZUj ~
~ O z
FLU w zz~
<<CO>>
SSOO S400 S300 S200 S100 35.7%
Added in FY '81 18 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
that could most effectively market large volumes of bonds. The Supply System anticipates that the majority of its future bond issues will be negotiated.
With guidance from its financial advisors, the Board of Directors also implemented several innovative features in FY81 specifi-cally developed to increase the market demand for its securities and/or reduce the costs of debt (over and above the significant effects of the negotiated sale authorization).
New provisions include:
~ "Put" Bondsredeemable at par at the option of the bond holder on a specific date, (usually 10 years), and each year thereafter until maturity.
~ Original Issue Discount Bondsbearing a coupon appreciably lower than the current interest rates, but priced at a significant discount from par so as to effect a yield-to-maturity at current market levels.
Efforts to generate construction funds in the short-term markets through implementation of the Balanced Financing Program for Projects 4 and 5 did not materialize during FY81. The 88 participating utilities are continuing to study the impacts of these financing arrangements on their respective operations.
Despite the prevailing unsettled conditions in the national financial markets, the Supply System is continuing to develop and imple-ment innovative programs to assure the continuing availability of construction funds.
Supply System Financial Advisor Lazard Fr0res & Co. of New York Managing Underwriters Project 1 Senior Manager Merrill Lynch White Weld Capital Markets Group Project 2 Senior Manager Smith Barney, Harris Upham 5 Co.,lnc.
Project 3 Senior Manager Goldman, Sachs 5 Co.
Project 4 and 5 Senior Manager Salomon Brothers Other Underwriters Blyth Eastman Paine Webber, Incorporated; The First Boston Corporation; Kidder, Peabody 5 Co., Inc.; Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York; The Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc.; Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago; Donaldson, Lufkin 5 Jenrette Securities Corporation; Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, Incorporated; Dain Bosworth, Incorporated; Bank of America NT 5 SA; Bear, Stearns 5 Co.; Seattle-Northwest Securities Corporation; Foster and Marshall, Inc., and John Nuveen 5, Co., Incorporated.
When the Supply System built the Hanford Generating Projectin 1966.it harnessed steam that otherwise would have been wasted. HGP has provided the Northwest with up to 4.5 billionkilowatt hours a yearenough electricity to meet the needs of a city with half a millionpeople.
I L
E
.,4 20 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
IVlanagement
~ Reorganized management structure and brought in experienced staff from industry and government
~ Decentralized management of projects
~ Removed Supply System from hands-on construction management
~ Hired Bechtel to manage Hanford construc-tion; gave EBASCO undivided construction management role at Satsop
~ Completed integrated schedules for all five plants Labor
~ Resolved labor dispute at Hanford
~ Reached labor stabilization agreement at Projects 3 and 5; negotiations under way at 1,2, and 4
~ Negotiated favorable three-year contracts with administrative and nuclear bargaining units Quality Assurance
~ Cleared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion to resume all safety-related work at Project 2 Accomplishments since August 1980
~ Completed first budget built on hard quanti-ties and installation rates based on drawings
~ Commended by the NRC after its 500-hour audit of the Satsop site
~ Established an engineering review team of five nationally known executive engineers and implemented recommendations
~ Established corporate nuclear safety program Construction Progress
~ Attained record productivity at Projects 1
and 4
~ Completed major milestones at all projects Contracts/Legal
~ Realigned key contracts
.~ Gained legislative approval to negotiate some contracts
~ Centralized contracting functions under a single director Finance
~ Gained new financing options including negotiated bond sales
~ Hired new financial advisor and team of managing underwriters
4
~
KZHMXKKK1
~
0
~g 0
0
= GKFf
~
~
~
~
's 0
~ ~g g ol~"=,
(iigi~
22 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
Public 6 People' UtilityDistricts Oregon Central Lincoln PUD Clatskanie PUD Northern Wasco County PUD Tillamook PUD Washington Benton County PUD Chelan County PUD Clallam County PUD Clark County PUD Cowlitz County PUD Douglas County PUD Ferry County PUD Franklin County PUD Grant County PUD No. 2 Grays Harbor County PUD Kittitas County PUD Klickitat County PUD Lewis County PUD Mason County PUD No. 1 Mason County PUD No. 3 Okanogan County PUD Pacific County PUD No. 2 Pend Oreille County PUD Skamania County PUD Snohomish County PUD Wahkiakum County PUD Whatcom County PUD Cooperatives California Surprise Valley Electrification Corp.
Idaho Clearwater Power Co.
East End Mutual Electric Co.,
Ltd.
Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative. Inc.
Farmers Electric Co., Ltd.
Idaho County Light Ik Power Cooperative Assn., Inc.
Kootenai Electric Cooperative. Inc.
Lost River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Northern Lights, Inc.
Prairie Power Cooperative, Inc.
Raft River Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Riverside Electric Co., Ltd.
Rural Electric Co.
Salmon River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
South Side Electric Lines, Inc.
Unity Light Ik Power Company Montana Flathead Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Glacier Electric Cooperative.
Inc.
Lincoln Electric Cooperative.
Inc.
Missoula Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Ravalli County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Vigilante Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Nevada Wells Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Oregon Blachly-Lane County Cooperative Electric Assn.
Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Columbia Power Cooperative Association, Inc.
Consumers Power, Inc.
Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative. Inc.
Douglas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Harney Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hood River Electric Cooperative. Inc.
Lane County Electric Cooperative. Inc.
Midstate Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Salem Electric Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association Wasco Electric Cooperative, Inc.
West Oregon Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Washington Alder Mutual Light Company Benton Rural Electric Association, Inc.
Big Bend Electric Cooperative. Inc.
Columbia Rural Electric Association, Inc.
Elmhurst Mutual Power Ik Light Inland Power 8i Light Co.
Lincoln Electric Cooperative.
Inc.
Nespelem Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Ohop Mutual Light Okanogan County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Orcas Power 6 Light Company Parkland Light Ik Water Company Tanner Electric Wyoming Lower Valley Power 8i Light, Inc.
Municipalities Idaho Albion Bonners Ferry Burley Declo Heyburn Idaho Falls Minidoka Rupert Oregon Bandon Canby Cascade Locks Drain Eugene Forest Grove McMinnville Milton-Freewater IVlonmouth Springfield UtilityBoard Washington Blaine Centralia Cheney Coulee Dam Ellensburg McCleary Port Angeles Richland Seattle Steilacoom Sumas Tacoma Irrigation Districts Consolidated Irrigation District 19 Vera Irrigation District 15 Investor-Owned Utilities Montana Power Company Pacific Power 8a Light Company Portland General Electric Company Puget Sound Power Ik Light Company The Washington Water Power Company Participants, Members 5 Joint Owners Total Participants and Members by Classification Cooperatives: 52 Municipalities: 32 Public UtilitiyDistricts: 26 Investor-Owned Utilities: 5 Total: 115 23
"The decisions about the Supply System's future will affect us all...affect the nation's nuclear industry...
and in a real sense affect people in the coming generations."
Stanton H. Cain President of the Supply System Board of Directors Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report