Federal Power: PMA Rate Impacts, by Service Area (Letter Report,
01/28/99, GAO/RCED-99-55).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the future role of the
power market administrations (PMA) by providing a PMA-by-PMA analysis of
the potential rate changes that would likely be experienced by
preference customers who buy power from the Southeastern Power
Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and Western Area
Power Administration if the power is sold at market rates.

GAO noted that: (1) in general, a preference customer's potential rate
increase depends primarily on what portion of its total power comes from
the PMA and how close the PMA's rate is to the market rates; (2)
significant variation exists among the PMAs and among states if these
PMAs begin to charge market rates for the power they market--most rate
increases would likely be relatively small, although some would likely
be larger; (3) overall, slightly more than two-thirds of the preference
customers that purchase power directly from Southeastern, Southwestern,
and Western would likely see relatively small or no rate increases if
these PMAs begin to charge market rates for the power they market; (4)
almost all of Southeastern's preference customers would likely see
relatively small rate increases of up to one-half cent per kilowatthour
(kWh) on rates that in 1995 typically ranged from 3.5 to 6.0 cents per
kWh; (5) most of these preference customers would likely see increases
of less than one-tenth cent per kWh; (6) if the preference customers
served by Southeastern pass the higher rates on proportionally to their
residential end-users, most end-users would see their monthly
electricity bill increase by less than $1, while the maximum increase in
their electricity bill would range in most states between $1 and $8,
depending on the state; (7) most of Southwestern's preference customers
would likely see relatively small rate increases of up to one-half cent
per kWh on rates that in 1995 typically ranged between 1.5 and 3.5 cents
per kWh; (8) preference customers who receive power from Western would
likely see a variety of rate increases on rates that typically ranged
from 1.5 to 4.0 cents per kWh; (9) in some states, more than
three-quarters of the preference customers would likely see relatively
small increases of less than one-half cent per kWh; in contrast, a
number of preference customers would likely see average rate increases
that exceed 1.5 cents per kWh; (10) for more than three-quarters of
these preference customers, their residential end-users would pay about
$11 to $24 more per month for electricity; and (11) generally, of the
total power consumed in a state, the portion provided by the three PMAs
is small.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-55
     TITLE:  Federal Power: PMA Rate Impacts, by Service Area
      DATE:  01/28/99
   SUBJECT:  Electric utilities
             Energy marketing
             Utility rates
             Electric power generation
             Energy consumption
             Cost analysis
             Rural economic development
             Urban economic development
             Energy costs

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

January 1999

FEDERAL POWER - PMA RATE IMPACTS,
BY SERVICE AREA

GAO/RCED-99-55

Federal Power

(141275)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOE - Department of Energy
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  kWh - kilowatthour
  PMA - power marketing administrations
  TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-281758

January 28, 1999

The Honorable John T.  Doolittle
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

The federal government has played a significant role in the
development of electricity markets.  Primarily in the 1930s, the
federal government began to market electricity after the Congress
authorized the construction of dams and established major water
projects.  These projects are managed for multiple purposes--for
example, providing water for irrigation, flood control, water
supplies, navigation, and recreation.  Federal agencies also generate
electricity at about 130 hydropower plants located at the water
projects, providing about 5 percent of the nation's electricity
supply.\1 To provide this power to many parts of rural America, the
government established power marketing administrations (PMA) to sell
the power that is not used for projects' other purposes.\2 Rural
America is now electrified.  In the last Congress, proposals were
introduced that would have required the government to sell the
PMA-related hydropower assets. 

To aid in congressional deliberations on the future role of the PMAs,
as requested we are providing a PMA-by-PMA analysis of the potential
rate changes that would likely be experienced by preference
customers\3 who buy power from three of the PMAs if the power is sold
at market rates.\4 More specifically, we identify potential changes
in preference customers' rates and the share of total state power
consumption for each state served by the Southeastern Power
Administration (Southeastern), the Southwestern Power Administration
(Southwestern), and the Western Area Power Administration
(Western).\5


--------------------
\1 This power excludes that which is provided by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA)--a multipurpose independent federal corporation. 
Among other activities, TVA generates and markets power, which it
sells in most of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia. 

\2 These PMAs include the Southeastern Power Administration,
Southwestern Power Administration, and Western Area Power
Administration.  In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration
(Bonneville), the oldest and the largest in terms of total revenues,
operates in the Pacific Northwest.  Finally, the projects
constituting the Alaska Power Administration, the smallest PMA, were
fully divested in October 1997 and August 1998. 

\3 Preference customers are cooperatives and public bodies, such as
municipal utilities, irrigation districts, and military
installations. 

\4 Recently, we issued Federal Power:  Regional Effects of Changes in
PMAs' Rates (GAO/RCED-99-15, Nov.  16, 1998).  That report provides
state-by-state information on (1) the extent to which preference
customers' rates may change if market rates are charged, (2) the
areas the three PMAs' preference customers report serving, and (3)
the incomes in these areas and the extent to which they are rural or
urban. 

\5 We focused our examination on Southeastern, Southwestern, and
Western.  Bonneville is not covered by this report; Bonneville's
preference customers rely significantly on its power, which could
cause rate increases that would not be comparable to those of the
other PMA's customers. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Now that nearly all households in America have electricity, some
believe that the Department of Energy's (DOE) PMAs have completed
their mission of providing electricity to rural America and that the
PMA-related hydropower assets\6 should be divested, particularly
since greater competition exists in the electricity industry.  Other
options would be to (1) maintain the status quo regarding the
ownership and operation of the government's hydropower assets or (2)
improve how the federal assets are managed and operated, such as
charging rates for power based on competition (market rates).\7

The PMAs sold wholesale power to their preference customers at
average rates that, from 1990 through 1995, were from 40 to 50
percent below the rates nonfederal utilities charged.\8 Although
preference customers generally purchase most of their power from
sources other than the PMAs and, as a result, pay market rates for
that power, concerns have been raised that a change in PMAs'
ownership or the means by which they establish rates could increase
rates and could adversely affect the rural or poorer areas they
serve. 

Our analyses identify how much preference customers' rates would
likely change if market rates are charged.  To do this, we assumed
that a customer would pay a rate equal to the average rate it paid
for wholesale power from sources other than the PMA(s) in 1995.  We
then estimated how each preference customer's rate change would
affect the rates paid by its residential end-users.  To do this, we
assumed that the preference customer would pass the rate change on
proportionally to its end-users. 


--------------------
\6 Power marketed by the PMAs is generally produced by facilities
owned and operated by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers. 

\7 Our report Federal Power:  Options for Selected Power Marketing
Administrations' Role in a Changing Electricity Industry
(GAO/RCED-98-43, Mar.  6, 1998) identifies options that the Congress
and other policymakers could pursue to address concerns about the
PMAs' role in restructured markets or to manage them in a more
businesslike fashion.  Among other options, the report discusses
divestiture and its potential impact on preference customers by
individual PMA.  DOE believes that market rates would not necessarily
be charged if a PMA is divested to a public entity. 

\8 Many of these preference customers resell the power that they
purchase from the PMAs to industrial, commercial, and/or residential
end-users. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In general, a preference customer's potential rate increase depends
primarily on what portion of its total power comes from the PMA and
how close the PMA's rate is to the market rates.  Significant
variation exists among the PMAs and among states if these PMAs begin
to charge market rates for the power they market--most rate increases
would likely be relatively small, although some would likely be
larger.  Overall, slightly more than two-thirds of the preference
customers that purchase power directly from Southeastern,
Southwestern, and Western would likely see relatively small or no
rate increases if these PMAs begin to charge market rates for the
power they market. 

  -- Almost all of Southeastern's preference customers would likely
     see relatively small rate increases of up to one-half cent per
     kilowatthour (kWh)\9 on rates that in 1995 typically ranged from
     3.5 to 6.0 cents per kWh.  Most of these preference customers
     would likely see increases of less than one-tenth cent per kWh. 
     If the preference customers served by Southeastern pass the
     higher rates on proportionally to their residential end-users,
     most end-users would see their monthly electricity bill increase
     by less than $1, while the maximum increase in their electricity
     bill would range in most states between $1 and $8, depending on
     the state. 

  -- Most of Southwestern's preference customers would likely see
     relatively small rate increases of up to one-half cent per kWh
     on rates that in 1995 typically ranged between 1.5 and 3.5 cents
     per kWh.  In turn, in most cases, residential end-users that
     receive power from Southwestern's preference customers would see
     their electricity bill increase by less than $3 a month. 

  -- Preference customers who receive power from Western would likely
     see a variety of rate increases on rates that typically ranged
     from 1.5 to 4.0 cents per kWh.  In some states, more than
     three-quarters of the preference customers would likely see
     relatively small increases of less than one-half cent per kWh. 
     In these states, residential end-users served by most preference
     customers would see rate increases of less than $2.50 in their
     monthly electricity bill.  In contrast, a number of preference
     customers in some other states would likely see average rate
     increases that exceed 1.5 cents per kWh.  For more than
     three-quarters of these preference customers, their residential
     end-users would pay about $11 to $24 more per month for
     electricity. 

Generally, of the total power consumed in a state, the portion
provided by the three PMAs is small.  For example, in 1995, the PMAs
provided 5 percent or less of the total power consumption in 22 of
the 29 states in our analysis.  The share for three states, however,
exceeded 10 percent--with the share for South Dakota being about 23
percent.  The average for the 29 states was 2 percent. 


--------------------
\9 A watt is the basic unit used to measure electric power.  A
watthour is equal to a watt of power applied for 1 hour.  A
kilowatthour is 1,000 watthours. 


   SOUTHEASTERN POWER
   ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

We found that most rate increases for Southeastern's customers would
likely be relatively small and that the three PMAs provided small
portions of power to those states served by Southeastern. 


      MOST RATE INCREASES FOR
      SOUTHEASTERN'S CUSTOMERS
      WOULD LIKELY BE SMALL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

As shown in figure 1, most of Southeastern's preference customers
would likely see relatively small rate increases if they pay market
rates for PMA power.\10 Specifically, almost all of Southeastern's
preference customers would likely see average rate increases of up to
one-half cent per kWh on rates that in 1995 typically ranged from 3.5
to 6.0 cents per kWh.  Most of these preference customers would
likely see increases of less than one-tenth cent per kWh.  If the
preference customers served by Southeastern pass the higher rates on
proportionally to their residential end-users, most end-users would
see their monthly electricity bill increase by less than $1, while
the maximum increase in their electricity bill would range in most
states between $1 and $8, depending on the state. 

Figure 1 also shows that in nearly every state Southeastern serves,
at least 85 percent of the preference customers would likely see
relatively small rate increases.  Slightly more than half of the
PMA's preference customers would likely see increases of less than
one-tenth cent per kWh.  The only relatively large rate increase for
a preference customer served by Southeastern would likely be in
Illinois, which has one preference customer. 

   Figure 1:  Potential Changes in
   Preference Customers' Rates and
   PMAs' Share of Total Power
   Consumption in Each State
   Served by Southeastern

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As we discuss in our March and November 1998 reports, it is important
to remember that in many cases where rate increases would likely be
relatively large, the preference customers paid about 1 to 1.5 cents
per kWh in 1995 for PMA power.  These rates on average were about 2.5
to 3 cents per kWh lower than what utilities paid in the private
market nationwide.  Conversely, in many cases where rate increases
would likely be relatively small, that is, one-half cent per kWh or
less, preference customers generally paid rates close to the market
rates. 

Also, a preference customer's rate increase also depends on what
portion of its total power comes from the PMA(s).  Generally, the
less a preference customer relies on PMA power, the lower the rate
increase would likely be.  In contrast, a preference customer that
purchases a large portion of its power from a PMA is more likely to
experience a larger increase.  Notwithstanding, DOE officials noted
that the amounts of power that customers purchase may be deemed more
significant than our categorization suggests because in many cases
the power purchased from the PMAs is provided at times of peak
demand. 


--------------------
\10 In our analysis, the increases that we considered relatively
small (0.5 cent per kWh or less), moderate (from greater than 0.5
cent up to 1.5 cents), and relatively large (greater than 1.5 cents)
represent amounts above the average rates that preference customers
paid for power from all sources (both PMAs and others) in 1995.  The
increases represent the difference between these average rates and
what preference customers would likely have to pay if they purchased
all of their power at market rates.  For example, if a preference
customer of Southeastern paid a combined rate of 3.5 cents per kWh
for power from the PMA and other sources in 1995 and paid 3.9 cents
for power from non-PMA sources, we assumed the customer's rates would
likely rise from 3.5 to 3.9 cents--a relatively small increase of 0.4
cent--if it had to pay market rates for all of its power.  Our
calculation of the increase in a residential end-user's monthly
electricity bill represents the amount of the preference customer's
increase times the average monthly consumption of electricity by
residential end-users in the preference customer's state. 


      PMAS PROVIDED SMALL PORTIONS
      OF POWER TO STATES SERVED BY
      SOUTHEASTERN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The likely rate increases if the preference customers pay market
rates for PMA power would usually affect a small portion of the power
consumed in each state, as shown by the coloring of the states in
figure 1.\11 For states in our analysis that are served by
Southeastern, the three PMAs provided less than 1.8 percent of the
total power consumed in each state. 


--------------------
\11 Collectively, the three PMAs provided 5 percent or less of the
total power consumption in 22 of the 29 states in our analysis.  The
average for the 29 states was 2 percent. 


   SOUTHWESTERN POWER
   ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

We found that about half of Southwestern's customers would likely see
relatively small rate increases but that others' increases would
likely be larger.  Also, the three PMAs provided small portions of
power to the states served by Southwestern. 


      ABOUT HALF OF SOUTHWESTERN'S
      CUSTOMERS WOULD LIKELY SEE
      RELATIVELY SMALL RATE
      INCREASES, BUT OTHERS' WOULD
      LIKELY BE LARGER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

As shown in figure 2, most of Southwestern's preference customers
would likely see relatively small rate increases of up to one-half
cent per kWh on rates that typically ranged between 1.5 and 3.5 cents
per kWh.  In turn, residential end-users that receive power from most
of Southwestern's preference customers would see their electricity
bill increase by less than $3 a month.  However, in Oklahoma, 79
percent of the preference customers would likely see larger increases
that exceed 1.5 cents per kWh.  For most of these customers, their
residential end-users would see monthly increases of about $22.  Most
of these customers paid less than 1.5 cents per kWh--less than half
the 1995 national average market rate--and purchased all of their
power from Southwestern.  Taken together, Southwestern's preference
customers would likely experience higher rate increases than
Southeastern's customers but lower increases than Western's. 

   Figure 2:  Potential Changes in
   Preference Customers' Rates and
   PMAs' Share of Total Power
   Consumption in Each State
   Served by Southwestern

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PMAS ALSO PROVIDED SMALL
      PORTIONS OF POWER TO STATES
      SERVED BY SOUTHWESTERN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

As with Southeastern, the likely rate increases in states served by
Southwestern would usually affect a small portion of the power
consumed in each state.  For states in our analysis served by
Southwestern, the three PMAs provided small portions of the total
power consumed--ranging from about 0.6 percent to 4.1 percent. 


   WESTERN AREA POWER
   ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We found that Western's customers would likely see a variety of rate
increases if market rates are charged.  Also, the three PMAs provided
larger portions of power to some states served by Western than they
did for states served by Southeastern and Southwestern. 


      WESTERN'S PREFERENCE
      CUSTOMERS WOULD LIKELY SEE A
      VARIETY OF RATE INCREASES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

As shown in figure 3, preference customers who receive power from
Western would likely see a variety of rate increases on rates that
typically ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 cents per kWh in 1995.  In
California, Colorado, and Nebraska, for example, more than
three-quarters of the preference customers would likely see
relatively small increases of less than one-half cent per kWh.  In
these states, residential end-users served by most preference
customers would see rate increases of less than $2.50 in their
monthly electricity bill.  At least 25 percent of the preference
customers in several states served by Western, including Arizona,
Montana, and New Mexico, would likely experience average rate
increases from greater than one-half cent up to 1.5 cents per kWh. 
Finally, a large number of preference customers in several states,
including Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota, would likely experience
rate increases that exceed 1.5 cents per kwh.  For more than
three-quarters of these preference customers, their residential
end-users would pay about $11 to $24 more per month for electricity. 

   Figure 3:  Potential Changes in
   Preference Customers' Rates and
   PMAs' Share of Total Power
   Consumption in Each State
   Served by Western

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   PMAS PROVIDED LARGER PORTIONS
   OF POWER TO SOME STATES SERVED
   BY WESTERN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We found that the portions of PMA power consumed in some states
served by Western were larger than those for states served by
Southeastern and Southwestern.  As shown in figure 3, the share of
total state power consumption for states served by Western was small. 
It was as small as about 0.6 percent for Texas.  The share for three
states, however, exceeded 10 percent--with the share in South Dakota
being nearly 23.3 percent. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We discussed the facts in this report with DOE's Power Marketing
Liaison Office, which represents Southeastern, Southwestern, and
Western.  Officials of that office, including its Assistant
Administrator, stated that their comments fall into three general
areas.\12 They stated that they believe that our data sources are
flawed, that the data we used do not reflect today's market
situation, and that average rates are not a good proxy for specific
PMA power services.  Specifically, DOE officials commented that their
primary concern with our report was their belief that we relied on
incomplete and/or inaccurate data.  Our analyses used data reported
annually by the PMAs to the Secretary of Energy and by the preference
customers to the Energy Information Administration.  These data
describe the operating and financial condition of the PMAs as well
preference customers' electricity purchases in the wholesale market
and are the best data available.  DOE officials also commented that
using 1995 data does not reflect today's market situation because
PMAs' rates have recently declined.  Comparable data for 1996 or
later were not available at the time of our analyses; however, we see
no evidence that the PMAs' rates have fallen more than rates in the
wholesale market.  Industry experts state that market rates for
wholesale power have also declined since 1995 and will fall farther. 
If market rates fall more than the PMAs' rates, our estimates of rate
increases will prove to be overstated.  Finally, DOE officials
commented that average rates are not a good proxy for specific power
services from PMAs.  We acknowledge that average revenue per kWh
(total revenues/total electricity sales) is an imperfect indicator of
electricity rates because it combines the costs of several types of
services; however, we believe it is a strong, broad indicator of the
relative power production costs of the PMAs compared to those of
investor-owned utilities and publicly owned generators. 


--------------------
\12 DOE officials stated that they had no new comments but reiterated
some of their previous concerns with our data sources, which they
raised for our November 1998 report.  See app.  V of GAO/RCED-99-15,
pp.  94-105. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To estimate any potential rate changes if market rates are charged
(after a divestiture of the PMAs or otherwise), we calculated how
much, in cents per kWh, each preference customer\13 paid, on average,
for power purchased from (1) all sources, including the PMAs, and (2)
sources other than the PMAs, including the wholesale market, in
1995.\14

Then, we took the difference between these two, considering the
latter to be the market rate.  To calculate how much preference
customers paid for the PMA power, we obtained data from
Southeastern's, Southwestern's, and Western's fiscal year 1995 annual
reports.  Then, to determine how much each preference customer paid
for the power it purchased from other sources, we used the "sales for
resale" databases compiled by DOE's Energy Information
Administration.  In cases in which the Energy Information
Administration's data lacked the volumes of wholesale power the
customers purchased from non-PMA sources, the amounts the customers
paid for power, or both, we assumed the customer paid a rate equal to
the average market rate paid by customers of the same type for
wholesale power in the customer's state.  To estimate how much each
preference customer's rates would likely change if it paid market
rates for PMA power, we assumed that the customer would pay a rate
equal to the average rate it paid for wholesale power from sources
other than the PMA(s) in 1995.  We used this assumption because, for
example, it is likely that in the period immediately after a
divestiture, the new owners of the PMAs' assets would charge the
prevailing market rates for wholesale power in the area.  Finally, we
compared the average rate each preference customer paid for all of
its power in 1995 with the rate the customer paid for the power it
purchased from sources other than the PMA(s).  The difference in
these two rates represents our estimate in cents per kWh of each
customer's potential change in average rates if it paid market rates
for the power it purchased from the PMA(s).  After estimating how
much preference customers' rates would likely change, we analyzed the
rate changes by state.  To provide context for the rate changes, we
estimated how each preference customer's rate change would affect the
rates paid by its residential end-users.  We assumed that (1) the
preference customer would pass the rate change on proportionally to
its end-users and (2) that each

state's residential end-users would consume a quantity of electricity
equal to the average residential consumption for that state in 1995,
according to the Energy Information Administration.\15

To calculate the share of total state power consumption provided by
the PMAs, we added the power provided by any of the three PMAs to
those preference customers included in our analysis and divided that
sum by the total state power consumption in 1995, as reported by the
Energy Information Administration.\16

It is important to note that our analysis included only those
customers that purchased power directly from the PMAs.  It is also
important to note that because our estimates of potential rate
increases are based on market rates in 1995, our methodology is
conservative.  If prices for wholesale power decline in the future,
as many industry analysts and DOE officials believe they will,
customers' rate increases generally will be smaller than our
estimates.  We conducted our review from November 1998 through
January 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 


--------------------
\13 We estimated potential rate increases for the preference
customers that the PMAs listed in their 1995 annual reports.  These
customers buy power directly from the PMAs.  We did not include
utilities that indirectly buy PMA power through direct preference
customers, such as generation and transmission cooperatives and
municipal joint action agencies. 

\14 For this report, we based our work on an existing database
developed for an earlier GAO report, GAO/RCED-98-43, which compiled
information on 1995 purchases.  Our analyses for both reports used
data reported annually by the PMAs to the Secretary of Energy and by
the preference customers to the Energy Information Administration. 
As of November 1998, when we completed our analyses, comparable data
for 1996 or later were not available, according to DOE's Energy
Information Administration. 

\15 A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is
contained in GAO/RCED-99-15. 

\16 See Electric Sales and Revenue 1995 (DOE/EIA-0540 (95), Dec. 
1996). 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days from the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies to appropriate House and Senate committees and
subcommittees; interested Members of the Congress; the Administrators
of Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western; and other interested
parties.  We will also make copies available to others upon request. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me on (202) 512-3841.  Major contributors to this report were
Peg Reese, Charles Hessler, Lynne Goldfarb, and Daren Sweeney. 

Susan D.  Kladiva
Associate Director, Energy,
 Resources, and Science Issues

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Federal Power:  Regional Effects of Changes in PMAs' Rates
(GAO/RCED-99-15, Nov.  16, 1998). 

Federal Power:  Options for Selected Power Marketing Administrations'
Role in a Changing Electricity Industry (GAO/RCED-98-43, Mar.  6,
1998). 

Federal Electricity Activities:  The Federal Government's Net Cost
and Potential for Future Losses (GAO/AIMD-97-110 and 110A, Sept.  19,
1997). 

Federal Power:  Issues Related to the Divestiture of Federal
Hydropower Resources (GAO/RCED-97-48, Mar.  31, 1997). 

Power Marketing Administrations:  Cost Recovery, Financing, and
Comparison to Nonfederal Utilities (GAO/AIMD-96-145, Sept.  19,
1996). 

Federal Electric Power:  Operating and Financial Status of DOE's
Power Marketing Administrations (GAO/RCED/AIMD-96-9FS, Oct.  13,
1995). 


*** End of document. ***