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 of Board'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 WNP-1 WNP-2 WNP-3 WNP-4/5 Total Par Values S 410 S 200 S 225 ~
S 760 S1,595 Number of Issues 2 1 1 4 8 Borrowing Cost (%) 9.76 9.33 10.67 11.01 10.43 Financial Total Long-Term Revenue Bonds Outstanding Highlights Outstanding as of June 30 S1,455 S1,459 S 905 S2,250 S6,069 of 1981 108 101 67 188 464 ($ in Millions)
Annualized Interest Expense S S S S S Borrowing Cost (%) 7.43 6.90 7.43 8.35 7.65 Interest Earned Interest on Investments S 35 S 35 S 30 S 67 S 167 Annual Rate of Return (%) 13 30 13,.11 12 28 11.55 12.29
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. President Together, these same utilities are financing and constructing five nuclear power plants gi ' 0 ~ of the Board's in the state of Washington. The organization Message they created, the Washington Public Power Supply System, was the first Joint Operat- ; Jy ing Agency formed in the country.
Today, the participants and joint owners in the Supply System plants include all sectors in the power industry both public and
~
Its
+ ~P f
') r use power from Supply System projects. The private. It acts for 32 municipalities, 26 public utility districts, 52 rural electrification importance of these projects to the North-cooperatives and five investor-owned west is evident in the June 1981 Pacific utilities. Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC) report which predicts a 2,100-Supply System projects will provide about megawatt power shortage by 1990. The 20 percent of the Northwest's base-load shortfall occurs even under the premise that electrical energy capacity or 6,080 meg- all five Supply System projects are commer-awatts of energy within this decade. This cially operating by 1987.
impressive figure does not count the 860 megawatts of safe, cost-effective nuclear Decisions remaining as to continued con-power which for 15 years have been struction of our plants will in turn affect produced by the Supply System's Hanford how much food, lumber and paper products, Generating project. aluminum, chemicals and other goods will go to national and world markets. All these More than eight and a half million people in Northwest industries are dependent upon Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, the successful completion of our five Wyoming, California, Utah and Nevada will projects.
A coupling deviceis the essential link between the turbine and generator at Project 2 just as the utilities of the Northwest are the essential point of contact between the Supply System and the people who willuse its electricity.
t k
"'~.'UshtflgtonPubl'c Pot".ct SU/.7I;'Su,>ten) i98i AnnU;il,i'd~I;'."t
However, balanced against the obvious need with our accomplishments as we are with for power are the economic realities of Grand Cou'lee Dam.
soaring inflation and the cost of financing.
Both hit hard at high-technology projects.
Our five plants are no exception.
This is a time when tough business deci- Stanton H. Cain sions are necessary for survival. The Supply President of Supply System Board System Board arrived at one of those difficult judgments in June, when it opted to Other Supply System Board Members slow construction on two of the five pro-jects. The region's power entities are Leonard M. Allen Harold F. Nelson actively involved in decisions about those Lewis County PUD Grant County PUD projects approving actions to temporarily Marion C. Babb Larry Nickel resolve a cash-flow problem and actively Klickitat County PUD City of Ellensburg seeking alternative financing arrangements to spread both cost and risk more broadly Dbnald R. Clayhold Paul J. Nolan throughout the region. Benton County PUD City of Tacoma Kenneth R. Cochrane Hal Norman Approval of the $ 23.8 billion Supply System Franklin County PUD Pacific County PUD budget by the Board of Directors is affirma-tion that we need these projects for the Ed Fischer C. Stanford Olsen Northwest to continue to be a robust, Clark County PUD Snohomish County PUD growing region. This need is underscored by Howard Prey A. E. Fletcher the substantial efforts of the Northwest's Clallam County PUD Douglas County PUD utilities, governors and industries to search for new ways to continue construction of Rolf E. Jemtegaard Joe Recchi the projects. 'Skamania County PUD Seattle City Light Robert O. Keiser Howard B. Richman Electric energy has always been a catalyst Chelan County PUD Cowfitz County PUD for our growth. The debate about Grand Coulee Dam gives us some perspective on William G. Kuehne Roger Sparks this. People argued that we should not build Ferry County PUD Kittitas County PUD it because we'd never need the power. They Thomas M. Logston Edwin W. Taylor also said, as I recall, that it would be too City ol Richland Afason County PUD expensive. Fifty years later we hear the same arguments. Yet I'm convinced that 50 David Lee Myers John J. Welch years from now people will be as impressed Wahkiakum County PUD 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 option for 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
', -/s~, Managing Director in August 1980. Since our perfor-s Dtrector's mance can reflect upon an entire industry, we are compelled to set the highest manage- Overview ment, quality assurance and construction standards. i(are 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. asked to make a comprehensive evaluation of construction management at the Supply To make construction progress a reality, a Sytem. As a result of its recommendations, new team of director-level managers was we have ended the practice of integrated recruited from the nuclear and construction management with our construction mana-industries. They include three program gers and have clarified the roles of the directors who have a total of more than 60 Supply System, the architect-engineers and years of technical and nuclear experience. the construction managers.
Each is assigned to a construction site:
Project 2, Projects 1/4 or Projects 3/5. This In January, the Supply System delegated new decentralized approach makes each construction management to national program director accountable for perfor- experts in the nuclear field. The Bechtel mance against a baseline budget and Power Corporation, the country's most expe-schedule. rienced nuclear construction firm, assumed management of construction and pre-startup I also appointed a special independent activities for the three projects at Hanford.
engineering task force of five nationally EBASCO was given undivided responsibility known executive engineers. This team was
Rising 12 stories above the Southeastern Washington desert is the Supply System's Project 2 where 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 dispute at Projects 3 and 5. Disagreements and 5 at Satsop. would be arbitrated at the local level, with no picket lines and no lockouts. A five-and-Contracting activities were centralized under a-half month labor dispute was resolved at a single director to assure greater consis- Hanford and negotiations are under way for tency in contracting. Selected contracts at a labor stabilization agreement for Projects all five projects are being realigned to 1,2and4.
streamline the total number of contractors wherever possible and to provide incentives Renegotiation of the International Brother-to complete the job on schedule. hood of Electrical Workers/Supply System collective bargaining unit agreements cover-The Supply System also gained the freedom ing nearly 550 power operators and admi-to select completion contractors based on an nistrative employees was completed without evaluation of their ability to perform rather disruption. The new three-year agreements than on a competitive bid. This was made cover approximately 25 percent of Supply possible when the Washington Legislature System employees.
passed a law giving the Supply System the right to negotiate a contract for completion Progress was also made with two crucial of a nuclear plant once a project was 80 federal agencies. The Bonneville Power percent complete. In August, Bechtel Power Administration, which underwrites the Corporation was selected as the completion power production of Projects 1, 2 and 3, has contractor for Project 2. assigned a resident manager to the Supply System to improve communications. Its new The legislature also passed a law allowing administrator, Peter Johnson, has also pub-negotiated bond sales, giving the Supply licly stated his intention to accelerate System greater flexibilityto react to market regional power forecasts, which are impor-conditions. This important legislation is tant to the credibility of the Supply System's more fully explained in the Treasury section endeavors.
of this report.
.The Nuclear Regulatory Commission com-Not only did we gain important new busi- mended the Supply System for its "commit-ness avenues and support from the legisla- ment to quality" after a 500-hour audit of ture, but labor also demonstrated that it is Projects 3 and 5 and gave the go-ahead for interested and supportive of our efforts. An safety-related work to resume at Project 2.
example is the labor stabilization agreement that was signed in February at Satsop. It The April audit the most intensive since precludes a site shutdown during a labor work began at Projects 3 and 5,in 1977 revealed no major safety problems. NRC
Some of the craltsworkers at the E Supply System's three Hanford projects began their careers on the Manhatten Projectin the 1940s. Their precision work is now evidentin the peaceful use of the atom to generate electricity for more than eight and a half million people in eight Western states.
E
~ ~ c 10 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
investigators issued five minor noncom- The final major hurdle in achieving realistic pliance notices, only two of which related to management objectives was establishing actual construction. Changes were initiated integrated engineering and construction to resolve all five. The audit satisfies new schedules for all five projects. The five-NRC regulations instituted after the Three month estimating process began in January Mile Island incident in 1979. and involved hundreds of Supply System, construction manager and contractor When the NRC removed its stop-work order employees. It was the most thorough esti-at Project 2, it cleared the way for comple- mating effort ever undertaken at the Supply tion of the state's first fully commercial System. The estimate was based on histori-nuclear power plant. The safety-related cal data from all five Supply System projects work had been on hold since July 1980. The as well as pertinent information from other NRC sanction to resume work was given U.S. and foreign generating projects.
after the adequacy of previously installed equipment was reverified. The reverification The budgeting process used the same program included an exhaustive review of basis actual quantities af materials speci-all documentation on procurement pro- fied on engineering drawings and installa-cesses, material, personnel and quality tion rates derived from historical data. The assurance. result was the first comprehensive estimate of funds needed to complete all five plants.
Added emphasis has been given to both These numbers have never before been quality assurance and safety standards by developed with such accuracy.
establishing director-level positions for those two areas of concern. New Supply The result of this scrutiny over the last 15 System quality assurance policies standard- months is that the direction of the Supply ize procedures for all the projects, assuring System has changed dramatically. There is that all current and future work will be perhaps no greater evidence of this than the properly documented and will meet con- June decision to slow construction at two of struction specifications. To ensure com- our five nuclear projects.
pliance with regulatory safety standards, the Supply System established a highly quali- This judgment of our Board of Directors was fied, independent nuclear safety evaluation based on the reality that funding five group. A Corporate Nuclear Safety Review projects at an estimated cost of $ 23.8 billion Committee was also formed to review major presents a very, very difficult problem in safety items and to advise senior staff on today's financial market. This is a period of safety matters. uncertainty not only for our funding, but for
The secrets to a smooth running power plant are continuous maintenance and attention to detail reasons 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 a to convertit into electricity for Northwest consumers.
12 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
funding of similar kinds of projects through- And we choose to manage our organization out the United States. by design rather than default. Our choice is to operate the Supply System in the most The decision to slow construction was made economically responsible manner possible-more difficult because our commitment to and to help the Northwest utilities meet completion of the projects was manifest in their commitments for the future. We will the construction records being set at those demonstrate that the nuclear option is one "Let me say that I took very plants in the months prior to the that this nation cannot afford to abandon. this job to succeed...
slowdown. I cannot predict at this time what the economic risks of slowing construction and we can succeed."
at Projects 4 and 5 will be. I do know that Robert L. Ferguson
-the issue of the need for their power must Managing Director in a speech to the Supp/y System be resolved at the earliest possible date so Board of Directors that the impact on the public is as small as Robert L. Ferguson May 29, 1981 possible. Managing Director 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 u~<
workers must remain focused on completing these projects on schedule and within budget.
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. ~
V 1 )
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.
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
largest of their kind in the United States, Supply System construction gained were completed in February, within budget momentum during the last year with record- and well in advance of operation. A 115-breaking production rates and completion of cubic-yard concrete placement completed major milestones. the roof at the Project 1 seven-story general services building in May, three weeks ahead Projects 1 and 4 productivity records were of schedule.
set this spring. Completion percentages for April through June 1981 were 4.6 percent Another major milestone at Project 1 was at Project 1 and 5.5 percent at Project 4.
Not only were these production numbers the reached on March 28 when the world' Construction largest mobile crane hoisted the 376-ton highest in Supply System history, but mate- domed top of the containment building. This Progress rials were installed below anticipated costs. structure, 180 feet from its underground base to its top, is the project's last major One of the major construction milestones building to be enclosed.
finished ahead of schedule was the six mechanical-draft cooling towers for Projects The most apparent construction progress at 1 and 4 at Hanford. These towers, the Project 3 is its 500-foot cooling tower. In November, workers placed the final concrete on the massive shell.
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 I generators which were placed in the contain-ment building in late August, ahead of I schedule.
The work force at Project 2 the 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 billion in the chart (at right) reflects S1.909 billion in funding from investor-owned utilities and S2.545bil- o r 4 lion in funding from the Bonneville Power Administration.
op 4
or+3 I C
(
S1.455 SUPPLY SYSTEM WNP-1 S3.190 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS s1.495'NP-2 June 30, 1981 lS in Millions) k ~
\
S905 Financing Complete WNP-3 Supply System Funding Requirement S2,250 WNP-4 ~ '.
&5 St 1,179 kkkk Wk geP Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
In addition to competing with other joint Recent financing accomplishments epito- operating agencies for funds, the Supply mize the rationale behind the creation of the System was at a marketing disadvantage, as Supply System the financial and economic it was limited to selling its bonds under a advantages of the joint agency concept. In competitive bidding procedure. The Supply FY81, in the face of high interest rates and System could only negotiate sales after declining availability of funds for public formally rejecting all competitive bids of a power projects, the Supply System raised like issue.
$ 1.595 billion.
From 1973 until 1980, the Supply System These funds were generated in eight sold 42 issues using the competitive bid Treasury issues approximately $ 200 million every 24 business days. The overall interest cost process. By comparison, only one other joint operating agency has sold an issue competi-Activities during the year was 9.90 percent for the tively during this time for $ 65 million. The three net-billed projects and 11.01 percent Supply System opted for its first negotiated for Projects 4 and 5. bond sale in April of 1980. The record high interest rates prevailing during the sched-In the nine-month period from July 1980 to uled sale for Project 4/5 bonds created a April 1981, the Board of Directors approved situation in which the Supply System chose the sale of 26 percent of all Supply System to reject the single bid and enter into a bonds issued since 1973, when the first of negotiated sale. These successful negotia-the five projects was initiated. These sales tions resulted in $ 3.8 million of additional were realized at a time when yields on proceeds and $ 27.5 million in interest long-term municipal bonds reached their savings over the life of the issue.
all-time post World War II highs.
To gain additional benefits of a fully nego-The Supply System was the country's first tiated sale where the price, discount, size joint operating agency when it was estab- of the issue and structuring of the bonds are lished in 1957. Since its beginning, more negotiable the Supply System and its par-than 40 other state and regional joint power ticipating utilities entered into a program authorities have been created. Thirteen have aimed at securing legislation to grant the now entered the market place for construc- . Supply System the option of using either tion funds. Since January 1973, these joint competitive or negotiated sales. The operating agencies have issued $ 11.3 billion Washington State Legislature granted this of securities. The Supply System alone option in 1981. The Supply System subse-accounts for $ 6.1 billion, or 54 percent, of quently selected a team of managing under-that total outstanding. writers, composed of national and regional investment and commercial banking firms
SSOO Ul S6 tn (leftj 26.2% U S400 35.7%
In the nine-month period from July S5 Added in CC Added in FY '81 FY '81 1980 to April 1981, the Supply System D z sold 28.2 percent of allits bonds S4 O~ S300 issued since 1973. V) LU (rightj 0 S3 LU 0 The annual interest charges reflect Q go2 I
S200 the effect of risinginterest rates.
LU S2 ZUj ~
V) 4 O S100 M 'Q VJ S1
~
FLU w zzz~
0>> <<CO>>
18 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
that could most effectively market large Supply System Financial Advisor volumes of bonds. The Supply System anticipates that the majority of its future Lazard Fr0res & Co. of New York bond issues will be negotiated.
Managing Underwriters With guidance from its financial advisors, the Board of Directors also implemented Project 1 Senior Manager several innovative features in FY81 specifi- Merrill Lynch White Weld cally developed to increase the market Capital Markets Group demand for its securities and/or reduce the costs of debt (over and above the significant Project 2 Senior Manager effects of the negotiated sale authorization). Smith Barney, Harris Upham 5 Co.,lnc.
New provisions include:
~ "Put" Bonds redeemable at par at the Project 3 Senior Manager Goldman, Sachs 5 Co.
option of the bond holder on a specific date, (usually 10 years), and each year thereafter Project 4 and 5 Senior Manager until maturity. Salomon Brothers
~ Original Issue Discount Bonds bearing a coupon appreciably lower than the current Other Underwriters interest rates, but priced at a significant discount from par so as to effect a yield-to- Blyth Eastman Paine Webber, Incorporated; maturity at current market levels. The First Boston Corporation; Kidder, Peabody 5 Co., Inc.; Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Efforts to generate construction funds in the of New York; The Robinson-Humphrey short-term markets through implementation Company, Inc.; Continental Illinois National of the Balanced Financing Program for Bank and Trust Company of Chicago; Projects 4 and 5 did not materialize during Donaldson, Lufkin 5 Jenrette Securities FY81. The 88 participating utilities are Corporation; Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, continuing to study the impacts of these Incorporated; Dain Bosworth, Incorporated; financing arrangements on their respective Bank of America NT 5 SA; Bear, Stearns 5 operations. Co.; Seattle-Northwest Securities Corporation; Foster and Marshall, Inc., and John Nuveen Despite the prevailing unsettled conditions 5, Co., Incorporated.
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.
I L
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 billion kilowatt hours a year enough electricity to meet the needs of a city with half a million people.
E
.,4 20 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
IVlanagement Labor
~ Reorganized management structure and ~ Resolved labor dispute at Hanford brought in experienced staff from industry and government ~ Reached labor stabilization agreement at Projects 3 and 5; negotiations under way at
~ Decentralized management of projects 1,2, and 4
~ Removed Supply System from hands-on ~ Negotiated favorable three-year contracts Accomplishments construction management with administrative and nuclear bargaining units since
~ Hired Bechtel to manage Hanford construc-tion; gave EBASCO undivided construction Quality Assurance August 1980 management role at Satsop
~ Cleared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
~ Completed integrated schedules for all five sion to resume all safety-related work at plants Project 2
~ Completed first budget built on hard quanti- ~ Commended by the NRC after its 500-hour ties and installation rates based on drawings audit of the Satsop site
~ Established an engineering review team of Construction Progress five nationally known executive engineers and implemented recommendations ~ Attained record productivity at Projects 1 and 4
~ Established corporate nuclear safety program ~ Completed major milestones at all projects Contracts/Legal Finance
~ Realigned key contracts ~ Gained new financing options including negotiated bond sales
. ~ Gained legislative approval to negotiate some contracts ~ Hired new financial advisor and team of managing underwriters
~ Centralized contracting functions under a single director
4 ~
KZHMXKKK1
~ '
0 0 = GKFf
~g 0
~ ~ 's
~ ~
0
~ ~g g ol~"=, (iigi~
22 Washington Public Power Supply System 1981 Annual Report
Public 6 People' Kootenai Electric Cooperative. Inc.
Harney Electric Cooperative, Declo Utility Districts Inc. Heyburn Lost River Electric Hood River Electric Idaho Falls Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative. Inc. Minidoka Oregon Northern Lights, Inc. Lane County Electric Rupert Central Lincoln PUD Prairie Power Cooperative, Cooperative. Inc.
Clatskanie PUD Inc. Midstate Electric Oregon Northern Wasco County PUD Raft River Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Bandon Tillamook PUD Cooperative, Inc. Salem Electric Canby Riverside Electric Co., Ltd. Umatilla Electric Cascade Locks Washington Rural Electric Co. Cooperative Association Drain Benton County PUD Chelan County PUD Salmon River Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Wasco Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Eugene Forest Grove Participants, Clallam County PUD Clark County PUD South Side Electric Lines, Inc.
West Oregon Electric Cooperative, Inc.
McMinnville Milton-Freewater Members 5 Cowlitz County PUD Douglas County PUD Ferry County PUD Unity Light Ik Power Company Washington IVlonmouth Springfield Utility Board Joint Owners Alder Mutual Light Company Franklin County PUD Montana Benton Rural Electric Washington Grant County PUD No. 2 Flathead Electric Association, Inc. Blaine Grays Harbor County PUD Cooperative, Inc. Big Bend Electric Centralia Kittitas County PUD Glacier Electric Cooperative. Cooperative. Inc. Cheney Klickitat County PUD Inc. Columbia Rural Electric Coulee Dam Lewis County PUD Lincoln Electric Cooperative. Association, Inc. Ellensburg Mason County PUD No. 1 Inc. Elmhurst Mutual Power Ik McCleary Total Participants Mason County PUD No. 3 Missoula Electric Light Port Angeles and Members by Okanogan County PUD Cooperative, Inc. Inland Power 8i Light Co. Richland Pacific County PUD No. 2 Ravalli County Electric Lincoln Electric Cooperative. Seattle Classification Pend Oreille County PUD Cooperative, Inc. Inc. Steilacoom Cooperatives: 52 Skamania County PUD Vigilante Electric Nespelem Valley Electric Sumas Municipalities: 32 Snohomish County PUD Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative, Inc. Tacoma Public UtilitiyDistricts: 26 Wahkiakum County PUD Ohop Mutual Light Investor-Owned Utilities: 5 Whatcom County PUD Nevada Irrigation Districts Total: 115 Okanogan County Electric Wells Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Consolidated Irrigation Cooperatives Cooperative, Inc. Orcas Power 6 Light District 19 Company Vera Irrigation District 15 California Oregon Parkland Light Ik Water Surprise Valley Electrification Blachly-Lane County Company Investor-Owned Cooperative Electric Assn. Tanner Electric Utilities Corp. Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative, Inc. Wyoming Idaho Central Electric Cooperative, Montana Power Company Clearwater Power Co. Lower Valley Power 8i Light, Pacific Power 8a Light Inc. Inc.
East End Mutual Electric Co., Columbia Power Cooperative Company Ltd. Association, Inc. Portland General Electric Fall River Rural Electric Municipalities Company Consumers Power, Inc.
Cooperative. Inc. Coos-Curry Electric Idaho Puget Sound Power Ik Light Farmers Electric Co., Ltd. Cooperative. Inc. Company Idaho County Light Ik Power Albion The Washington Water Power Douglas Electric Cooperative, Bonners Ferry Cooperative Assn., Inc. Inc. Company Burley 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