Board Members present: Susie Smith, Jeff Osanka, Mike Dyer, and Dorothy Anderson. Commissioner Bishop was excused.

Others present: Randy Berggren, Tom Buckhouse, Eric Hiaasen, Jim Maloney, Garry Kunkel, Scott Spettel, Roseanna McArthur, Dick Helgeson, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Peter Bartel, member of the public; and Kim Kunkel, Minutes Recorder.

President Smith called the meeting to order.

INTEGRATED ELECTRIC RESOURCE PLAN

Referring to a memorandum included in the meeting agenda packet, Resource Planning Analyst Jim Maloney stated that the tentative agenda for this 8th Work Session on the Integrated Electric Resource Plan was as follows:

1. Review identified alternative futures and resolve internal inconsistencies
2. Add new alternatives for consideration
3. Identify, for each alternative future, the provider of last resort and/or how low-income customers are addressed
4. Select a set of three to four alternative futures with which to move forward
5. Staff proposal for beginning set of decision areas and strategic responses in each area (i.e., the Strategy Table)
6. Review, revise, and complete the Strategy Table
7. Begin crafting alternative resource strategies
8. Schedule next session

Referring to a series of overhead displays, copies of which were distributed to the Board, Mr. Maloney solicited suggested revisions to the six alternative futures tables developed during the previous Integrated Electric Resources Plan Work Session. The Board posed the following comments and suggestions:

• Item I-3 in The Wild Wild West alternative futures table, "Bonding authority still vested in non-power customer citizenry," mitigates the "wildness" of this alternative future. Suggest that one alternative future reflect the absence of such bonding authority.
• Under the Financing/Ownership, etc. category of the SPAM alternative futures table, include the following alternative state: "public utility tax benefits phased out over time."
• In item D-3 of the SPAM alternative futures table, note that the Renewable Portfolio Standard is adopted at the State level.
• Under the Wildcards category of the SPAM alternative futures table, items I-7 and I-8 may be "either/or."
• Under item D-4 of the Jeff's Suggested Future alternative futures table, delete the first four words. Rename this future Trending Positive.

Recalling Commissioner Bishop's undeveloped notion of a Regionalization future discussed during the previous Work Session, Commissioner Anderson proposed that the following combination of alternative states might reflect such a future: (A-1 or A-4); (B-4); (C-3); (D-3); (E-3); (F-5); (G-4 and G-2); (H-3 and H-5); (I-4 and I-6).

In response to a request by President Smith, Mr. Berggren proposed a future based on the following combination of alternative states: (A-1); (B-3--with limited capability for financing); (C-7--split power/transmission); (C-6); (D-3--Federal level); (F-2 and F-5); (G-4--regional/WPPSII); (H-2 and H-5); (I-1, I-3, and I-6); (E-2).

Commissioner Dyer proposed a modified Wild Wild West future, based on the following combination of alternative states: (A-3); (B-5); C-3 and C-6); (D-2 and D-6); (E-4); (F-1); (G-2--near-term focus); (H-4).

(The Commissioners took a short break)

Noting that there were now a total of nine alternative futures from which will be selected a set of three or four, and limited time remaining for the Work Session, Mr. Maloney suggested that staff submit, for the Board's consideration, a proposal regarding the three or four alternative states with which to proceed. There was Board consensus in having staff submit such a proposal.

Referring to the draft Strategy Table developed by staff, Mr. Maloney noted that the resource-related strategy decisions EWEB is making are based on answers to the following fundamental questions:

1. Should EWEB acquire new generation resources?
2. How much more conservation and Demand-Side Management resources should EWEB acquire?
3. How should EWEB construct its resource portfolios?

Noting that the matrix was only partially filled in, Mr. Maloney solicited suggestions for additional strategies.

Vice President Smith stated her opinion that many of the proposed strategies are political public policy decisions related to "who EWEB is." She suggested that the Board define the range of strategies it is willing to collectively entertain. Mr. Maloney said the draft Strategies Table was intended to reflect a relatively broad range of strategies.

Vice President Osanka suggested that Commissioners vote either "yes" or "no" on each proposed strategy option. He said that rather than giving staff only a general sense of the Board's preferences, a decisive vote on each proposed strategy option will both narrow the scope of possibilities by identifying what is and is not acceptable to the Board and provide staff with clear direction.

President Smith proposed, and illustrated on a large display chart, a restructured strategies table.

President Smith requested that item 7, under the Demand-Side Management category, be deleted.

Mr. Maloney requested that the Commissioners identify, on copies of the draft Strategies Table that were distributed to the Board, the proposed strategies they would like deleted. In addition, he requested that the Commissioners note suggested additions to the table. He said additions and deletions would be incorporated into the next draft of the Strategies Table.

The next Integrated Energy Resource Plan Work Session was tentatively scheduled for August 11.

The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.