Bonneville Power Administration day-ahead market draft policy
The following comments were submitted in response to the open comment period described below.
Comments are numbered consecutively as they are received. Breaks in the number sequence result when comments are deleted because they
were submitted in error or have inappropriate content (such as SPAM). If you do not see your comment two business days after
you submit it, please contact (800) 622-4519.
BPA has issued its day-ahead market draft policy, which documents BPA’s day-ahead market consideration process. The draft policy supports BPA’s staff recommendation to join the Southwest Power Pool’s Markets+ initiative rather than the California Independent System Operator’s Extended Day-Ahead Market or not participating in a day-ahead market at this time. The draft policy has been posted to BPA’s day-ahead market page.
BPA has opened a formal public comment which closes at 10 a.m. on April 7. Click the make comment button below to submit comments. Please include your name, organization and email address with your comment. If you are submitting a comment with multiple signatories, please include the name and email for each person who signs the comment.
On March 19, BPA will host a day-ahead market participation meeting, providing a walkthrough of the draft policy paper.
For More Information:
https://www.bpa.gov/learn-and-participate/projects/day-ahead-market
Close of comment: 4/7/2025
- DAM2025250001 -
BuckleyPlease slow down and protect Northwest power customers. Don’t rush into Markets+. BPA should hit pause and wait for the best option—NOT rush into higher costs.
- DAM2025250002 -
BenedictProtect Northwest power customers.
Do NOT rush into Markets+.
- DAM2025250003 -
UngarNo need to rush this decision. Changes are coming.
- DAM2025250004 -
Goll**Public Comment on BPA Joining Southwest Power Pool’s Market**
I strongly urge BPA to reconsider its decision to join the Southwest Power Pool’s Markets+ and delay any actions until a thorough evaluation of the long-term impacts on ratepayers and the environment can be conducted. The proposed shift into Markets+ could result in significant increased costs—up to $129 million more annually for BPA and its ratepayers in 2026 alone, with no clear financial benefit demonstrated in the studies BPA has commissioned.
The region is already grappling with volatile power prices, extreme weather events, and the financial strain on consumers. Given the uncertainty around the true financial and environmental consequences of entering this market, it is crucial that BPA prioritizes the needs of its ratepayers. Rather than rushing into a decision, BPA should take the time to assess all potential impacts carefully, including the effect on the reliability of power and the environmental costs tied to the governance structure of Markets+.
Additionally, concerns from environmental groups, major utilities, and prominent stakeholders, including U.S. senators and power industry leaders, signal that more time and a deeper analysis are required before committing to such a significant change. The pressure to align with Markets+ may leave BPA isolated with limited options, but we cannot afford to make a hasty decision that could impose unnecessary costs on ratepayers and hinder progress toward a clean energy future.
I urge BPA to hit the pause button and give this matter the careful consideration it deserves, weighing not just short-term benefits but long-term impacts on the economic, environmental, and social well-being of the Northwest. Let’s ensure that any decision made is in the best interest of all stakeholders involved, especially consumers who will bear the costs.
- DAM2025250007 -
RichmanPlease delay your decision on choosing a west-wide energy market while the EDAM option better takes shape. Relative to Arkansas-based Markets+, the west coast-based EDAM is likely to save ratepayer dollars, better accommodate climate goals, and allow for more flexible dam operations for salmon, flood control, and water supply. There is no reason to rush this. Thank you for considering my brief comments.
- DAM2025250060 -
hughesHello. I wanted to understand the actual reasons why you plan to evacuate, or mostly leave the western states? I am trying to understand if you are concerned for the wildfires, and this suits you best to leave this area/states/region?
If so, hopefully you will not, but if so, please make certain your equipment does not trigger any further wildfires, and is cleaned up when you leave. I realize that you are federally owned, and will assist when you can, but due to all the sudden changes happening it feels like a disaster for us private consumers. I wonder if we should open up more clean nuclear plants that have advanced recycling equipment and not bury the waste material but reuse it like they do with a name PUREX I think.
Thanks for reading. Blessings your way in your final decisions.
- DAM2025250008 -
Garcia/WPUDALetter from The Washington Public Utility Districts Association - View attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250009 -
FarnessProtect Northwest power customers. Don’t rush into Markets+.
PLEASE hit pause and wait for the best option—DO NOT rush into higher costs.
Thank you!
- DAM2025250010 -
FreemanProtect Northwest power customers. Don’t rush into Markets+.
The smart move? BPA should hit pause and wait for the best option—NOT rush into higher costs.
- BPA won’t even participate in a day-ahead market until 2028.
- California is finalizing major market reforms that could change the equation.
- Northwest families and businesses can’t afford unnecessary rate hikes!
- DAM2025250012 -
Hanken-FollettI am a concerned PNW citizen writing to urge you to reconsider your plan to join the Southwest Power Pool. Firstly, I am concerned about increases in our energy costs here in the PNW if BPA leaves the Western power pool. Secondly, it is concerning that we would no longer be part of the California power grid that is interconnected and can quickly shut off power in the event of a wildfire. We all know wildfire season is getting worse every year and we need to be able to quickly turn off power. We can’t wait for operators in the Western power pool to call operators in the Southwest power pool before a decision is made. We don’t have that kind of time in a wildfire emergency. Thirdly, I think it is important that we work towards a regionally integrated Western power grid so that we can improve reliability, have cost savings, and better access to renewable energy sources. Please, stick with the California-controlled “real-time” market and become a part of the Pathways Initiative, which intends to spread governance of the power pool away from California and into the hands of the other members of the power pool.
- DAM2025250013 -
LewisSlow down and do not rush this decision to join Market+. This is reported to a move that will raise our power costs, protect PNW clean energy and customers.
- DAM2025250014 -
RasmussenI am very concerned about this policy shift to exit the California energy market and join the Southwest one.
Energy costs are already getting higher and higher, and this move will end up driving up rates for millions of customers and cause grid reliability issues.
With seasonal wildfires also threatening transmission lines and the grid, Western power customers are already facing an uncertain future, and this would only serve to threaten reliability in the future.
Thank you for considering my request to not join this Southwest energy market. We need to sustain the power needs of the Northwest customers first and foremost.
- DAM2025250015 -
LillgeI would like the BPA to pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing their decision.
As ratepayers in the Northwest, my neighbors and I deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In any scenario, I insist on a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
Thank you for your consideration.
- DAM2025250016 -
EdwardsThis expresses my feelings exactly!
Please fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing their decision.
Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
We need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
- DAM2025250017 -
JacobsonPlease pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing a decision.
Ratepayers (of which I am one) in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy. BPA is a Northwest utility and the needs of Northwest customers must come first -- even before California, if necessary.
In any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy. We seem to be working at a deficit in these areas: our SW resident orcas and their babies are dying from lack of salmon; habitat is being decimated; affordable energy is a thing of the past -- remember when electricity rates were a couple cents per KWH?!
PLEASE be reasonable. You do not need to send OUR electricity anywhere else! Southwest Power Pool? Serving Arkansas? I don't think so.
- DAM2025250018 -
CollinsI am writing to express my deep concern regarding BPA's proposal to change its current market affiliation with California-based Western Energy Imbalance Market and join Southwest Power Pool Markets+. The information gathered through BPA's own analysis shows that this decision will cost rate payers such as myself significantly more money on utility bills, with dubious future benefits. Rather than rush forward with this costly proposal, I strongly urge you to fully evaluate all market options available, and choose the option most economical to your customers here in the Pacific Northwest. I believe that every community member in Oregon and our neighboring states deserves affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy and this decision does not appear to act in that interest.
Additionally, information regarding this market affiliation clearly shows that as proposed it it will only impede the crucial effort to integrate renewable energy sources to our utility grid. Our region is lucky to have an abundance of renewal energy resources, which are certain to increase in the coming years, and these new energy sources will be critical to support communities in lessening power outages, unforeseen cost increases, and disastrous impacts to our long term climate stability. Additionally, these same invests are crucial for our local waterways and the wildlife that depend on them, most conspicuously our struggling anadromous fish species such as salmon. BPA has been a leader in previous years to help remedy some past infrastructure investments that have harmed wildlife and water quality and this decision appears to undermine those previous efforts.
We need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy, and this market affiliation change will accomplish none of those goals.
- DAM2025250019 -
ShafranskyI am writing to voice my strong opposition to BPA’s plan to join Southwest Power Pool.
I believe BPA needs to pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing their decision.
As a taxpayer in the Northwest, I feel I deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In any case, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
- DAM2025250020 -
PerkinsAs an energy consumer, I ask you to pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing their decision.
Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy.
In any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
- DAM2025250021 -
MooreTo whom it may concern,
This is a letter urging BPA to pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing your decision to change course. Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy, which rushing to change threatens. Whichever scenario is chosen needs to balance healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, AND reliable, affordable energy.
Thank you.
- DAM2025250022 -
WakefieldI ask BPA to pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing their decision.
Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
- DAM2025250023 -
ButlerI am asking the BPA to pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing this decision.
We ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
I must insist that in any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
- DAM2025250024 -
RobertsI am very concerned about the decision to enter a possible agreement with power companies in the southwest and Midwest. They have multiple lakes and rivers that could provide power if they developed their own infrastructure.
- DAM2025250025 -
Link-NewPlease pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing your decision.
Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
Thank you.
- DAM2025250026 -
MoskalPlease Do Not leave the "real-time" market you currently use for excess energy sales.
Any increased cost to NW utilities will be passed on to consumers.
We are already stretched too thin to endure another rising cost in our household budget.
- DAM2025250028 -
HollenbeckI oppose BPAs plan to join the Southwest Power Pool. Please consider all other options available to you. Washington residents and businesses deserve reliable, affordable, energy and healthy rivers. Our salmon and other wildlife deserve healthy rivers. Please reconsider your current plans.
- DAM2025250029 -
McMurtryHello,
I oppose the BPA joining the Southwest Power Pool. My concern is that will complicate efforts to bring more renewable energy online in the Pacific Northwest. I am also concerned that it will interfere with the management of the river system with respect to salmon.
- DAM2025250030 -
ErbsPlease pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing the decision to join Southwest Power Pool Markets+
Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
- DAM2025250031 -
HarterI am submitting a comment to ask that you please delay your decision on choosing a west-wide energy market while the EDAM option better takes shape. Relative to Arkansas-based Markets+, the west coast-based EDAM is likely to save ratepayer dollars, better accommodate climate goals, and allow for more flexible dam operations for salmon, flood control, and water supply. There is no reason to rush this. As a citizen of the Northwest I ask that you decide what’s best for ratepayers as well as the rivers themselves whom we rely on to provide us with the power. Thank you for considering my brief comments.
- DAM2025250032 -
KlymWe need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
Please pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing their decision.
- DAM2025250033 -
NasonBonneville Power's analysis showed that this switch to "Arkansas corporate tax theft" would cost taxpayers $100mm or more per year.
We want to know why you greenlight this clear waste, fraud and abuse. We want to know *who* would greenlight this clear attempt to fleece hardworking Americans.
- DAM2025250034 -
ZeliffI disagree with BPAs choice to make this change. I request:
1) BPA to pause and fully evaluate all market options as ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
2) Please consider that for a sustainable system, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
Thank you
- DAM2025250035 -
SouthThank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250036 -
ReynoldsDear Administrator John Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250045 -
SimsI urge BPA to consider joining the Day Ahead Market. It seems like common sense to be part of a large, extended market with few linkages that can maximize energy availability from all over. It will be more efficient and utilize energy at times of need in the NW vs. abundance in other locales. It will also save BPA money. I don't know why BPA would consider joining Market +. It seems like a short-sighted decision that will backfire in the long term. Please join the Day Ahead Market. Thank you.
- DAM2025250037 -
GarmanDear Administrator John Hairston,
I am the former Under Secretary of Energy in the George W. Bush Administration, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and request that you reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, and as a recognized expert in energy and environmental policy, I want the lowest possible electric rates combined with reliability and minimal environmental damage. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250038 -
DobsonDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250039 -
McRaeI am concerned that this change in market affiliation will lead to higher prices because BPA's own analysis states that this could be the case. Rising costs are generally passed on to the customer. In addition, renewable energy sources must be accommodated. These sources are important to multiple iconic species we have here in the NW, including salmon and Orcas.
Please fully evaluate all market options rather than rushing to a decision. Any energy scenario needs to balance needs of customers and the environment.
- DAM2025250040 -
millirenProtect Northwest power customers. Don’t rush into Markets+.
BPA should hit pause and wait for the best option—NOT rush into higher costs. It doesn't sound like there is any reason to make this decision now!
There is NO REASON to rush this decision:
- BPA won’t even participate in a day-ahead market until 2028.
- California is finalizing major market reforms that could change the equation.
- Northwest families and businesses can’t afford unnecessary rate hikes!
- DAM2025250041 -
RedmanPlease PAUSE and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing into a decision! Us ratepayers deserve affordable and reliable energy in a stable economy. No matter the scenario, we MUST have a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy. We won't have a need for power if we destroy our planet and our resources.
- DAM2025250042 -
BorcherdingTo whom it may concern, I urge caution and care in making your forthcoming decision concerning BPA's plan to join the Southwest Power Pool. Please pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing to a decision.
Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In all instances, no matter what BPA selects as it's path forward, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
Thanks for your consideration.
- DAM2025250043 -
FazzariPlease pause and give more time to evaluate all market options for this big decision.
PNW ratepayers need affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In any case overall, we need healthy rivers that can sustain and nurture our wildlife.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
- DAM2025250044 -
McGivernHello,
I’m writing to express my concern with BPA joining the Southwest Power Pool Markets. Please pause and fully evaluated all market options instead of rushing a decision to join the Southwest Power Pool Market.
I am concerned about added cost to the Northwest electrical utilities, reliability of the BPA system, integration of renewable energy systems and Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations.
Thank you for your consideration.
- DAM2025250046 -
Stewart/Electrify NowDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
Sincerely,
Brian Stewart
- DAM2025250048 -
Kendallpause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing your decision. pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing. in any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
- DAM2025250057 -
CallaghyDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining the Extended Day Ahead Market (EDAM). Those same studies show that simply maintaining current operations would be financially better than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electricity rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization.
In making this decision, BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest. Existing analyses demonstrate a clear business case for BPA to either join EDAM over Markets+ or to simply avoid higher costs by continuing current operations in the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) while the day-ahead markets continue to develop. BPA’s apparent rush to make this decision without better information in 2025 is reckless. I find it personally disturbing that you would make such an important decision now without better information. It does not speak well of you or the accountability of your agency.
I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets opts to join EDAM or, alternatively, pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers.
- DAM2025250058 -
Schacher/Salem ElectricThe decision to join the SPP Markets+ is the only obvious choice to me. Even if the only reason not to go to the CAISO EDAM was governance that would be enough.
The recent flurry of information coming from hearings in the California statehouse will solidify the decision. They are always going to look out for the best interest of California and we will not get a fair shake in the EDAM.
Additionally, I believe it creates a stronger system when it is governed by an independent board.
- DAM2025250059 -
HarlandDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250063 -
McMath WaltonDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250064 -
KargesDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250065 -
NimmonsDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250067 -
ChinDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250068 -
BrockDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250069 -
ZelaskoDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250070 -
ReesDear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
Sincerely,
Douglas Rees
- DAM2025250071 -
Fletcher/Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative, IncThe decision to join the SPP Markets+ is the only obvious choice to me. Even if the only reason not to go to the CAISO EDAM was governance that would be enough. BPA has done the necessary work to make an informed decision and one that is best for the entire PNW. Strongly encourage BPA to keep moving forward with SPP Markets+.
- DAM2025250072 -
RinehartDear Administrator John Hairston,
This is Steve Rinehart, in Boise. I have been following the discussion about PMW electric power markets. I subscribe to the position taken by the Idaho Conservation League, as noted below.
Please, let’s think about this. No hurry to make a decision when a wrong choice — such as proposed in the draft decision to join Markets+ — has some long consequences. Indeed, a strong business and consumer argument suggests this would be a bad move, a costly move.
Regards, and thanks for the chance to comment, — Steve Rinehart
ICL position, which I support:
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
- DAM2025250073 -
Forepaugh/General Manager, Wasco Electric CooperativeAdministrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft record of decision to join the Southwest Power Pool Markets+.
As a representative of an electric cooperative, I commend BPA’s decision to move forward with participation in the SPP Markets+ day-ahead market. This decision reflects a strong commitment to independent governance—an essential component for maintaining transparency, accountability, and trust in market operations. By prioritizing a governance model that values broad stakeholder input and prevents undue influence, BPA is helping to shape a market structure that serves the long-term interests of the region and its preference customers.
Load balancing, greenhouse gas accounting, and resource adequacy are all critical to the future of reliable and affordable power in the Northwest. BPA’s participation in Markets+ helps advance these goals. We appreciate BPA’s thoughtful approach to this transition and its ongoing commitment to equitable outcomes for BPA’s customers.
- DAM2025250074 -
CornI'm urging BPA to make the commonsense choice of either:
(1) joining a West-wide energy market which will lower costs for customers, work toward clean energy goals and promoted cohesive grid management in the West,
or
(2) wait until a clear case for one market or the other can be made by either a thorough analysis and/or sure-to-happen future changes in market structures.
- DAM2025250076 -
Zahnow/Puget Sound Energy, State & Regional Policy – Regional MarketsSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250077 -
JonasI oppose BPA's plan to join the Southwest Power Pool.
BPA’s own analysis, and many other studies by regional utilities and public interest groups, shows this switch would likely lead to higher power costs, less reliability, and more difficulty integrating the renewable energy sources we need for resilient Northwest communities, rivers, and salmon in the future, all at an additional cost to ratepayers of an estimated $100 million a year.
I ask BPA to pause and fully evaluate all market options instead of rushing this decision. Ratepayers in the Northwest deserve affordable, reliable energy and a stable economy.
In any scenario, we need a future that balances healthy rivers, abundant salmon and wildlife, and reliable, affordable energy.
- DAM2025250078 -
Fuentes/Franklin PUDSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250079 -
Goetz/Multiple organizationsSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250080 -
Johnson/Tacoma PowerSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250081 -
PersonDear Administrator John Hairston,
I disagree with the draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market and ask you to reconsider.
Joining Markets+ will increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM! Maintaining current operations would be financially better than joining Markets+.
Breaking the Western energy system into two markets will cause reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources.
It will dilute the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. It will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization.
BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
There is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM. At the very least, pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers.
- DAM2025250082 -
MillerDear Administrator John Hairston,
I'm commenting on your decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision for many reasons.
As a lifelong member of a northwest energy coop that's part of BPA, as were my parents before me, I am completely against joining Markets+ as it won't allow public input! This is not right, we shouldn't be shut out by a bad decision like that.
And, what are you thinking? Joining the more expensive of the two?? That might not sound like a problem to someone speculating in energy futures, but it will be bad for farmers such as myself, elderly such as myself, and employers across the region.
Plus, there's no need to commit to this now, you have said we wouldn't be joining any market for three years.
And let's not forget the environmental costs of choosing to select less renewables (which will also cost us more money).
Markets+ is a bad idea all round.
- DAM2025250083 -
KrakauerI urge, request and demand you delay the risky decision to join Markets+. Instead, please join EDAM, a greener and more reliable alternative.
- DAM2025250084 -
RumiantsevaI am against the Bonneville Power Administration's intent to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. This smaller, underdeveloped, untested and riskier energy market would increase costs to customers and limit opportunities to move away from hydroelectric dams, like the four on the lower Snake River. As an electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I care about the possibility of rates being raised. Please stop this transfer to Markets+ energy market. Thank you!
- DAM2025250085 -
MoenDear BPA,
I don't want to see higher local energy bills, decreased reliable energy, Tribes shut out of the policy decision making process, or stalled progress on replacing the four lower Snake River dams.
I therefore urge you to delay your Markets+ decision or choose the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) instead of Markets+. Given all the investments that have been made in the process thus far, we cannot afford going with Markets+.
- DAM2025250086 -
OuellettePlease do not commit to the risky Markets+ energy relationship that will raise rates and negatively impact tribal rights, salmon, and our environment, and instead delay until better options are considered including the EDAM option. Thank you for considering all of the impacts of this choice.
- DAM2025250087 -
McDonaldBPA's own studies and independent analysis confirm it: joining Markets+ offers no clear benefits and poses serious risks.
- DAM2025250088 -
Link-NewChoose EDAM now.
Thank you.
- DAM2025250089 -
VALDEZ/Yakama Nation
- DAM2025250090 -
AndersonColumbia Snake River Campaign gave me these words with which I wholeheartedly agree. This is a despicable project, so I'm conveying SCRC's words because mine would not be civil.
BPA plans to join Markets+, a smaller, out-of-state, underdeveloped, untested, and riskier energy market. This move would:
Raise electricity rates—costing Northwest ratepayers over $69 million annually
Decrease energy reliability—putting us at risk during critical moments, like the 2021 Texas blackouts
Stall progress on replacing the four salmon-killing dams on the lower Snake River by limiting the sharing of salmon-friendly renewable power sources
Violate federal trust responsibilities—shutting out Tribal voices in key energy decisions
Ignore a greener, more reliable alternative: the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM)
BPA's own studies and independent analysis confirm it: joining Markets+ offers no clear benefits and poses serious risks—yet BPA is rushing to finalize this choice in 2025, despite saying they won’t actually join a market until 2028.
- DAM2025250091 -
Goelz/Third Act WashingtonHi
Join in haste, repent in leisure. Please do not join Markets+ at this time. With what I know now, it seems like the wrong choice to me. But even if it’s not, I have to think it makes sense for BPA to take more time to explore the many concerns that have been raised and try to build a broader consensus for the choice. I firmly believe that the benefits of a more thoughtful, deliberate process far outweigh any advantage to acting now.
Chris Goelz
PS. I worked on BPA cases as a mediator for many years. You might want to consider bringing in a 3rd party to try to work through the concerns that have been raised.
- DAM2025250092 -
Marsh/Washington Clean Energy CoalitionI serve as the chair of the Washington Clean Energy Coalition, a non-profit coalition of environmental and civic organizations and concerned citizens. We have been involved in Puget Sound Energy Integrated Resource Plan advisory groups and regulatory policies at the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for the past decade. I also serve on Sierra Club's Washington State Energy Committee and Third Act Washington's PowerUp committee.
Our coalition and members are concerned about the possibility of bifurcating the energy market in the Pacific Northwest by having multiple markets running on the same physical grid,and having neighboring utilities (like Seattle City Light and Puget Sound Energy) working in different markets. Neither Markets+ nor the EIM are fully formed yet, but BPA is rushing this decision, possibly committing us to a more expensive, less reliable, and less interconnected choice. We are in the middle of an energy crisis, with rapidly growing demand, climate concerns, and cost and reliability issues. Making a premature choice could do great harm to our local economy.
Please slow down and observe how these markets evolve over the next year or two. Then we will have more data and a better understanding of the consequences of this decision.
- DAM2025250093 -
RuhaThat I did not hear about this issue from BPA is telling. Why would BPA choose an energy market option that from their own studies and independent analysis—show that the decision to join Market+ would present serious risks and no clear benefits, splitting our communities into an expensive, inefficient, unreliable, fragmented energy market.
If BPA knows that Market+ would do all the following:
Raise electricity rates, costing Northwest ratepayers like you over $69 million annually.
Decrease energy reliability during a crisis, leaving us vulnerable when it matters most, like the 2021 blackouts across Texas, which resulted in the deaths of over 200 people and left millions without power during a severe winter storm.
Ignore a more reliable, greener, and cost-effective alternative supported by major utilities across the West, the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). Studies show it would be less expensive for BPA just to continue its current operations and join neither market.
Slow the adoption of cleaner energy alternatives and maintain the Northwest’s reliance on salmon-killing hydroelectric dams, like the four lower Snake River dams.
Why would they be chosen? Whose interests would be served? Not mine. Not tribes. Not ratepayers.
There is no compelling reason for BPA to rush to make this decision in 2025. BPA has already stated it will not join any market until 2028, and both Markets+ and EDAM are still developing. It makes more sense to postpone and continue assessing day-ahead market options.
Please, take your time and be more thoughtful about this.
- DAM2025250094 -
MusgroveBPA has announced its intent to join Markets+, a smaller, underdeveloped, untested, and riskier energy market that would increase costs and limit opportunities to move away from hydroelectric dams like the four on the lower Snake River. As an electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, your voice matters in this decision!
Their own studies—and independent analysis—show that the decision to join Market+ would present serious risks and no clear benefits, splitting our communities into an expensive, inefficient, unreliable, fragmented energy market.
Joining Markets+ would:
Raise electricity rates, costing Northwest ratepayers like you over $69 million annually.
Decrease energy reliability during a crisis, leaving us vulnerable when it matters most, like the 2021 blackouts across Texas, which resulted in the deaths of over 200 people and left millions without power during a severe winter storm.
Ignore a more reliable, greener, and cost-effective alternative supported by major utilities across the West, the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). Studies show it would be less expensive for BPA just to continue its current operations and join neither market.
Slow the adoption of cleaner energy alternatives and maintain the Northwest’s reliance on salmon-killing hydroelectric dams, like the four lower Snake River dams.
Violate federal trust obligations to Tribes across the Columbia-Snake River Basin by shutting out Tribal participation in major energy decisions.
There is no compelling reason for BPA to rush to make this decision in 2025. BPA has already stated it will not join any market until 2028, and both Markets+ and EDAM are still developing. It makes more sense to postpone and continue assessing day-ahead market options.
- DAM2025250096 -
DooleyPlease do not join Markets+. It would raise electricity rates, decrease energy reliability, stall progress on replacing the 4 salmon-killing dams on the lower Snake River, shut out Tribal voices, and ignore the greener, more reliable alternative, the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM).
- DAM2025250097 -
LeavittI was born in 1936 in Tacoma and remember my mother giving me some cash to go to the waterfront
fish man who would open up a hatch in the floor
and slice up some freshly caught salmon, from the boat below....Even though we are not of tribal origin the importance of refreshing our sources of supply are so important for I have witnessed the errors of our ways in regard to this resource!
- DAM2025250098 -
MillerBPA needs to reconsider the consequences of a radical market shift. Recommend against joining Market+.
BPA’s own studies—and independent analysis—show that the decision to join Market+ would present serious risks and no clear benefits, splitting our communities into an expensive, inefficient, unreliable, fragmented energy market.
Higher rates and unreliability are possible outcomes.
This is not part of an integrated resource strategy, and it comes at the expense of dealing with other opportunities. We need to honor treaty rights and protections that other non regional players are not dealing with. Not a prudent choice.
I am a consumer and a previous BPA employee, I see this as a no-brainer. TOO MUCH RISK!
- DAM2025250099 -
Hiss/noneDon't be in a hurry to open a new account. If you do decide, please choose day-ahead market draft policy as opposed to the other alternative.
- DAM2025250100 -
CorfmanThere’s no need to make a rash and probably poor decision on joining an energy market. Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) Is known as a reliable, established, and more inclusive source, and I think a far better choice than the untested Markets+.
- DAM2025250101 -
BourPlease consider reconsidering the decision and if choosing to go into a market choose EDAM. EDAM is better for citizens and salmon conservation. Please reconsider
- DAM2025250112 -
StoppaniThis decision can be put off until next year when we will know if we can get a much larger market with lower costs to electricity customers.
The commitment now to join Markets + will lock the region into a smaller and more expensive market at an immediate cost of $25 million which doesn't make sense.
- DAM2025250102 -
Barua/Clean Energy Buyers Association
- DAM2025250103 -
CorethWe the people of WA demand the delay of this risky decision and give more consideration to alternatives.(Ie: EDAM)..Times are too turbulent to make such a harmful decision that will ruin years of progress.
- DAM2025250104 -
Calnon/Hood River Electric & Internet Co-opHood River Electric and Internet Co-op (HR Co-op) strongly supports BPA’s draft policy direction to participate in a day-ahead market and join Southwest Power Pool’s (SPP) Markets+.
See attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250105 -
Hillebrand/Central Lincoln PUDSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250106 -
Kraemer/Third Act WashingtonBPA's decision to go with Markets Plus will split the west in two, at a time when planning for an integrated transmission system and market is essential to provide projected power demand and reduce fossil fuels by moving renewable power throughout the western interconnection. BPA's decision is inexplicable, as its own recent analysis shows it will increase costs.
And there’s no reason to decide on joining any market right now. Both markets are still shaping into form and BPA has already said it won’t join any market until 2028.
- DAM2025250107 -
Morgan/Modern Electric Water CompanySee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250108 -
CeazanPlease postpone your decision to join Markets+. Markets+ and EDAM are still developing. I’m a Washington resident and I do NOT want to experience the impacts of this decision such as higher electricity rates (I’ve paid much higher rates this past winter) and less reliability (that is, BLACKOUTS.) On my own property, I’m committed to doing what I can to maintain our unique eco-systems, so, I want BPA to also be responsible and responsive and not do anything that will continue to REDUCE salmon populations and pollute our air and water. Lastly, consider that studies show it would be less expensive for BPA to continue its current operations.
- DAM2025250109 -
Echenrode/Umatilla Electric CooperativeSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250110 -
HoffmanExecutive Leadership Team:
Clearly BPA is putting profits over people, salmon and our fragile environment. Most of my 40-year career was spent in safety risk management. Clearly the risks far outweigh the benefits to BPA by joining Markets +. Choose wisely for the sake of the people and the environment you serve. Thank you in advance.
- DAM2025250111 -
Gatti/Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of AlaskaSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250113 -
Nichol/Trout UnlimitedPlease don't reverse the progress we have made to protect our Chinook Salmon and the Orca Whales who depend upon them for survival; taking down the 4 lower Snake River dams is key to protecting them and restoring their populations. Please take these dams down, and do not participate in the Markets+ system which will halt the progress we have made to protect our salmon, steelhead, and local orca whales who depend upon Chinook Salmon for their survival and restoration
- DAM2025250114 -
Golightly/Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish CommissionSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250115 -
RutherfordI have lived in Washington and Oregon almost my entire life and would like to not have the extinction of the Snake River Salmon happen in my lifetime. Please honor our treaties our native neighbors, remove the obsolete dams and save our environment.
- DAM2025250116 -
Turrubiates GarciaThis rush decisin has a better alternative that will benefit nature and people.A greener, more reliable alternative: the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM)
Negative impacts of joining Markets+:
-Raise electricity rates—costing Northwest ratepayers over $69 million annually
-Decrease energy reliability—putting us at risk during critical moments, like the 2021 Texas blackouts
- Stall progress on replacing the four salmon-killing dams on the lower Snake River by limiting the sharing of salmon-friendly renewable power sources
-Violate federal trust responsibilities—shutting out Tribal voices in key energy decisions
BPA's own studies and independent analysis confirm it: joining Markets+ offers no clear benefits and poses serious risks—yet BPA is rushing to finalize this choice in 2025, despite saying they won’t actually join a market until 2028.
- DAM2025250117 -
SchernthannerI am writing to urge BPA to change or at least slow down the decision to go with Market+ instead of Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). I urge you to go with the latter which give people in the northwest and salmon a better future. Why not save money through efficient resource sharing?!
A 2024 BPA-commissioned study showed that joining Markets+ would result in $69M to $221M higher production costs per year than joining EDAM, and the setup costs would be higher with Markets+ as well (an estimated $3M to help create EDAM, and up to $40M to implement Markets+). Given this, the choice to go with Markets+ seems poor. Not to mention sticking to the local region makes better sense for cooperative agreements, business and customers.
You do not have to make a decision now, so wait! Both markets are still coming to form and EDAM is getting better with time.
Please change or delay your decision.
Thanks.
- DAM2025250118 -
Newtondemanding they delay their decision or choose the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM)
- DAM2025250119 -
TaylorI absolutely do not want to support data mining and AI with my tax money. The BPA was created by citizens for citizens, not to give away our precious resources to privste industries.
Do not ignore our commitment to the earth.
- DAM2025250120 -
CutterI am against BPA joining the Southwest Power Pool, it will increase our rates from my utility, Pacific Power, as they will be forced to buy energy from a smaller pool which will likely drive up costs. In fact, several studies have shown this decision will lead to higher electricity costs for Northwest ratepayers. I understand rural electric cooperatives support the move, but investor-owned utilities, which supply the vast majority of electric consumers, will be better off joining California's Extended Day-Ahead Market. Or better yet, don't join either and stay with the current real-time system.
- DAM2025250122 -
BelangerI disagree with the decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. To do so, will raise electricity rates, costing Northwest ratepayers like me over $69 million annually. Plus this decision ignores a more reliable, greener, and cost-effective alternative supported by major utilities across the West.
There is no need to rush this decision. Take the time to listen to citizens who be adversely affected by this decision.
- DAM2025250123 -
Birge/Ona BeachPlease make the choice that will bring full salmon populations back to the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Time is running out to reverse their decline. Do the right thing,
- DAM2025250124 -
Mariswe have other clean options for power, besides hydro. the fish and environment need
free-flowing rivers. we need a healthy ecosystem.
- DAM2025250125 -
RitterBPA Markets + Comments
Phil Ritter, CPA
4-5-25
Pig-headed: “showing unreasonable support for an opinion or plan of action and refusing to change or listen”
I am old enough to have been here before. In the 1970’s we were BPA ratepayers in Eugene, Oregon and watched as “Through its forecasting, financing mechanisms, and regional power planning leadership, BPA was instrumental in both initiating and shaping the ambitious WPPSS nuclear construction program that ultimately collapsed under massive cost overruns” and resulted in both higher electricity rates and the largest public bond default in history.
And here we go again. Just a year away from having a solid plan for a Western Regional Transmission Organization and Day Ahead Market serving the entire region, BPA is committing $25 million to join a much smaller power market controlled by the Southwest Power Pool in Little Rock, Arkansas without much public participation at all and which will not include the massive supply of California renewable resources. At best this will mean walking away from their $25 million investment – at worst it will mean a region with two smaller markets and much higher electric rates for Northwest customers. And all this for a decision which doesn’t need to be made for another year since BPA won’t be able to participate in the market until 2019.
Of course this begs the question: Why did BPA get so far down this wrong road in spite of every expert piece of advice and the opinions of all four US Senators from Washington and Oregon?
In the aftermath of the WPPSS debacle Congress created the Northwest Power and Conservation Council with a $300 million a year budget to keep BPA on the right track. BPA legally is administered under the Department of Energy but DOE has never exercised its oversight responsibility. Congress gave the Power Council almost no direct authority over BPA’s decision making and made the Power Council dependent on BPA for its funding. I believe that both the DOE and the Power Council, with robust public consultation, should have to approve major decisions such as Markets + and that the funding for the Power Council should be a fixed percentage of BPA revenues.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250126 -
Schulz/Affiliated Tribes of Northwest IndiansSee attached also.
April 6, 2025
Bonneville Power Administration
P.O. Box 3621
Portland, OR 97208-3621
RE: ATNI Comments on Bonneville Power Administration Day-Ahead Market draft policy: Request for Bonneville Power Administration to Not Join a Day-Ahead Market Until Federal Trust Responsibilities to Tribes Are Fully Met
To whom it may concern:
The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) respectfully urges the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to not join a new day-ahead electricity market until it has fulfilled its federal trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations, including conducting proactive, meaningful, timely, and robust government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes.
BPA’s planned-for participation in a day-ahead market may have lasting implications for Tribal rights and interests. ATNI is concerned that BPA’s current drafted decision, if advanced without timely and meaningful Tribal consultation, could result in wide-ranging impacts on Tribal rights and interests that have been inadequately assessed. Under-examined concerns about the potential impacts of BPA’s decision include:
• Effects on the management of the Federal Power System and the Columbia River Basin, affecting Tribal rights and the Six Sovereigns Agreement
• Impacts on aquatic ecosystems, including habitats critical to anadromous species such as salmon and steelhead
• Impacts on sacred or cultural sites
• Impacts stemming from operational changes to dams
• Impacts on Tribal input, co-management, sovereignty, and self-determination
• Other impacts on Tribal rights and interests that are presently unknown
Despite concerns, it remains unclear whether Tribes with treaty and other protected rights have been adequately informed or meaningfully consulted regarding this consequential decision and its impacts. In uplifting Tribal rights and sovereignty, and toward a participatory and just energy transition, ATNI urges BPA to prioritize Tribal consultation leading to free, prior, and informed consent.
Additionally, as an intertribal consortium, advocate, and convener, ATNI respectfully requests BPA’s responses to the below questions:
1) What operational changes to dam management are anticipated in relation to BPA’s participation in a day-ahead market?
2) What analyses has BPA conducted regarding potential impacts on fisheries and how has BPA addressed the risk of harm to these resources?
3) Has BPA conducted a comprehensive review and developed a plan to ensure the protection of Tribal rights in connection with any changes that may result from entering the day-ahead market?
4) To what extent and with which mediums has BPA conducted proactive outreach and engagement with Tribes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and California , concerning the Day-Ahead Market decision and its implications?
5) To what extent has BPA conducted timely, meaningful consultation with Tribes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and California, concerning the Day-Ahead Market decision and its implications?
ATNI also encourages BPA to closely review the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) Energy Vision , which offers a balanced and forward-looking approach to meeting regional energy needs while upholding Tribal rights. Tribal sovereignty strengthens regional governance, and meaningful government-to-government partnerships are essential to achieving a just energy future.
Since 1976, BPA has taken important steps toward honoring its federal trust responsibilities, including recognizing Tribes as co-managers of the Columbia River Basin. In that same spirit, ATNI urges BPA to demonstrate its continued commitment to Tribal sovereignty by postponing day-ahead market entry until robust consultation has occurred, and trust obligations have been fully addressed.
ATNI stands ready to work collaboratively with BPA to ensure Tribal Nations are meaningfully engaged in this critical decision-making process. We respectfully request your consideration of this letter and look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Leonard Forsman, ATNI President
ATNI was founded in 1953 and is dedicated to the protection and advancement of tribal sovereignty and self-determination. ATNI is a nonprofit organization that serves 57 tribal nations in the greater Northwest that includes tribes in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, California, and Montana. For more than 70 years, the member tribes of ATNI have provided regional leadership and advocacy for Northwest tribal interests.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250127 -
Parekh/Earthjustice-comment 1 of 6See attached.This is comment 1 of 6
Please see attached comments from Earthjustice, Idaho Conservation League, and NW Energy Coalition. This is Submittal 5 of 5.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250128 -
Parekh/Earthjustice-comment 2 of 6See attached.
This is comment 2 of 6.
Please see attached comments from Earthjustice, Idaho Conservation League, and NW Energy Coalition. This is Submittal 3 of 5.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250129 -
Parekh/Earthjustice-comment 3 of 6See attached.
This is comment 3 of 6.
Please see attached comments from Earthjustice, Idaho Conservation League, and NW Energy Coalition. Including our comment letter, and accompanying exhibits 1-3.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250130 -
Parekh/Earthjustice-comment 4 of 6See attached.
This is comment 4 of 6.
Please see attached comments from Earthjustice, Idaho Conservation League, and NW Energy Coalition. This is Exhibits 5 to our comments.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250131 -
Parekh/Earthjustice-comment 5 of 6See attached.
This is comment 5 of 6.
Please see attached comments from Earthjustice, Idaho Conservation League, and NW Energy Coalition. This includes Exhibits 6-8.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250132 -
Parekh/Earthjustice-comment 6 of 7See attached.
This is comment 6 of 7
Please see attached comments from Earthjustice, Idaho Conservation League, and NW Energy Coalition. This is Exhibit 11 to our comments.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250133 -
Spires/Submitted on Behalf of Joint AuthorsSee attached
Submitted by the following joint authors:
Arizona Public Service Co, Chelan County PUD, Grant County PUD, Powerex Corp., Public Service Company of Colorado, Salt River Project, Snohomish PUD, Tacoma Power, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. and Tucson Electric Power Company
View Attachment
- DAM2025250134 -
LiebermanI am a PGE customer living in Portland, Oregon. I have seen my rates go up in recent years.
BPA joining the SW based day-aheadenergy market is a bad idea for rate payers. Your own analysis says that rates could rise by $100 million per year compared to staying in the current market. Since you will not participate until 2028, why the rush? Wait until you see how California is reforming their market. It might be a better deal for rate payers.
- DAM2025250135 -
Smith/Alliance for Tribal Clean EnergySee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250136 -
Prairie/Idaho Falls PowerSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250137 -
Miller/Western Power Trading ForumSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250138 -
Wyatt/Big Bend Electric Cooperative IncSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250139 -
Falkenberg/Pacific PUDSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250140 -
Dotson/University of Oregon School of LawSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250141 -
Rumble/Southern California EdisonSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250142 -
Tilghman/NIPPCSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250143 -
BrewerI urge BPA to delay its decision to join Markets+ and instead seriously consider the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) as a more reliable and responsible alternative.
Markets+ is an underdeveloped and untested energy market that could raise electricity rates by over $69 million annually, reduce grid reliability, stall progress on removing the Lower Snake River dams, and exclude Tribal Nations from key decisions—violating federal trust responsibilities.
EDAM offers a more proven, collaborative, and climate-friendly path forward. This high-stakes decision should not be rushed. BPA must prioritize transparency, Tribal consultation, and the long-term interests of the Northwest.
Please delay this decision and give EDAM the consideration it deserves.
- DAM2025250144 -
Capper/EWEBSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250145 -
Neale/WPAGSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250146 -
Otto/NWEC and NRDCSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250147 -
Hundal/PowerexSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250148 -
Moser/Alliance of Western Energy ConsumersAttached please find the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers comments on Bonneville Power Administration’s Day-Ahead Market Draft Decision.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250149 -
Huette/NWECSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250150 -
Schultz/California ISOSee attached PDF.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250151 -
ShrinerBecause the two markets, EDAM and Markets+, are still developing, it would be wise to wait and see how these markets develop before BPA commits to an agreement that could be costly for NW power consumers for an extended period of time. BPA’s own market study shows that this could be the case as well as adding reliability risk. With staffing cuts by the Trump administration and other core issues, a decision of this importance should be firmly based on solid data and market analysis. Since BPA is already a member of the large Western Energy Imbalance Market and according to their Quarterly Benefits report has saved $98.11 million in gross benefits since 2022, there should be no hurry into membership in an unproven day ahead market. Please stay the course in the WEIM and monitor the EDAM and Markets+ as they develop.
- DAM2025250152 -
Savage/PacifiCorp and Portland General ElectricSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250153 -
Iles/Amazon Web Services (AWS)See attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250154 -
Schroettnig/Northwest Requirements UtilitiesSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250155 -
Patterson/Mason PUD 3See attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250156 -
Goetz/Renewable NorthwestSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250157 -
Cornelius/Snohomish PUDSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250158 -
Velat/Cowlitz PUDSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250159 -
French/BlueGreen AllianceSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250160 -
Johnson/Seattle City LightSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250161 -
Meck/Pacific Gas & ElectricSee attachment
View Attachment
- DAM2025250162 -
Niranjan/Oregon Clean Grid Collaborative (OCGC)See attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250163 -
Tenney Denison/Public Power CouncilSee attached.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250164 -
Sullivan/Save Our wild Salmon Coalition/NW Energy Coalition/Sierra Club Washington ChapterSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250165 -
Greene/Makah Tribal CouncilSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250167 -
Atkin/Columbia Power CooperativeSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250168 -
Hines/Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian ReservationSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250169 -
Everett/Sierra ClubSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250170 -
Sykes/Columbia River PUDSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250171 -
Ross/Snoqualmie TribeSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250172 -
Staks/Staks on behalf of the Pathways Initiative Launch CommitteeSee attached
View Attachment
- DAM2025250173 -
Baker/Oregon and Washington state agenciesPlease see the attached joint comments from the Oregon and Washington State Agencies regarding BPA’s Day-Ahead Market Draft Policy.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250174 -
Power/Office of Governor Tina KotekPlease find attached a letter from Governor Ferguson and Governor Kotek to Administrator Hairston regarding BPA’s day-ahead market draft policy.
View Attachment
- DAM2025250175 -
FordFrom: Pat Ford
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 2:55 PM
To: Communications
Subject: Re: Comment on BPA’s day-ahead market draft policy
Dear Administrator Hairston,
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on BPA’s draft decision to join the Markets+ day-ahead energy market. I disagree with the draft decision and ask you to reconsider.
As a ratepayer and electricity customer in the Pacific Northwest, I want the lowest possible electric rates. Studies that you’ve commissioned show that joining Markets+ would increase BPA’s system costs by at least $65 million over joining EDAM. Those same studies show that just maintaining current operations would be better, financially, than joining Markets+. BPA has a fiduciary responsibility to its customer utilities and to the entire region. No minor differences in market governance structure justify raising electric rates to this degree.
In addition, fragmenting the Western energy system into two markets will create greater reliability challenges and reduce the efficiency of renewable resources. By joining Markets+, BPA is splitting the region into two markets and diluting the benefits of these markets for individual utilities and their customers. Seams between the markets will lead to resources being shared less efficiently, creating higher costs for consumers while slowing our progress toward decarbonization. BPA is not acting in the best interests of its customers or the Pacific Northwest.
Based on existing analysis, there is clearly a business case for BPA to join EDAM and I ask that BPA’s final decision on day-ahead markets reflect that case. If not, I ask you to pause this decision until clear, conclusive analysis can be completed on the consequences of market participation to BPA’s ratepayers. I also ask you to factor the forthcoming passage of the Western Pathways legislation in the California Legislature into your decision and wait until that legislation either passes or fails this legislative session.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Pat Ford
2317 N 19th St
Boise, ID 83702
|
|
|
