Board Members present: Dorothy Anderson, Sandra Bishop, Mike Dyer, Jeff Osanka, and Susie Smith.
Others present: Randy Berggren, Shirley West, Marty Douglass, Dick Helgeson, Cathy Hamilton, Garry Kunkel, Jim Origliosso, Jim Maloney, Scott Spettel, John Yanov, Eric Hiaasen and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; and Kim Kunkel, Minutes Recorder.
President Smith called the meeting to order.
INTEGRATED ELECTRIC RESOURCE PLAN (IERP)
Referring to a memorandum that was included in the meeting agenda packet and supplemental materials distributed to the Board, Resource Planning Analyst Jim Maloney said this, the 10th Work Session concerning the Integrated Electric Resource Plan (IERP), would focus on the following
Mr. Maloney briefly reviewed a proposed "structuring tool," introduced during the previous IERP Work Session, that places environmental regulation and market condition extremes at either end of intersecting "x" and "y" axes. He said this results in four quadrants in which futures can be plotted to measure their relation to these extremes.
Mr. Maloney explained that since the last IERP Work Session, staff revised the Green Shift Future according to suggestions made by the Board and then plotted the future on the axes to assess the resulting change in the future's position relative to the extremes. He said staff was then able to identify which extremes, represented by the axes' four quadrants and center point, were not yet represented by an alternative future. He said staff proceeded to identify the following futures as representing the four quadrants and center point, respectively:
Mr. Maloney solicited comments from the Board regarding the five proposed alternative futures. The Board made the following comments:
Mr. Maloney said staff would make final revisions to the five futures for the Board's review and consideration.
With regard to the next step of strategy development, Mr. Maloney said he had reviewed the Commissioners' reactions to proposed strategy options included in the Strategy Table. Referring to an overhead display, Mr. Maloney briefly reviewed the number of votes issued by Commissioners in opposition to some of the proposed strategy options.
Mr. Maloney said the first step is determining whether the Strategy Table is complete. Mr. Maloney briefly reviewed the Momentum Strategy, presented during the previous IERP Work Session, noting that it may represent a continuation of EWEB's current approaches.
Mr. Maloney presented a brief overview of a proposed Results Table, noting that it serves to illustrate the manner in which a strategy will play out in different futures. With regard to how the Board might select strategies from the Strategies Table, Mr. Maloney said the Commissioners could, for each of the five futures, choose the strategy that best responds to a particular future, or craft strategies and consider how each strategy will play out in a different future.
President Smith said she preferred the latter method of developing strategies. She said that by first determining the EWEB's course of action, the Board will be taking into consideration the long-term vision of the utility and basing its strategy selection on sustainability. She said the Board could develop contingency plans to ensure the success of its desired strategy.
Referring to an overhead display of a blank Strategy Table, Mr. Maloney asked each Commissioner to select a strategy by which EWEB might approach any of the five futures. Each Commissioner identified the combination of strategy options that comprised their proposed strategy, as follows:
Commissioner Dyer: A-4, B-3 and B-4, C4 and C-7 (however, allocate costs AND revenues), D-4, E-2 and E-5, F-3 and F-4, G-4 and add as G-6 "unrestricted wholesale sales"
Vice President Osanka: A-5 (revise to state "customized energy services. . .") and A-7, B-2, C-3 and C-6, D-2 and D-5, E-5 and E-6 (no suggestions for "F" and "G" at this time)
President Smith: A-4 and A-5 combined (targeted at most cost-effective, and largest quantity resource EWEB can acquire), B-4 (amend to make by customer segment or large category of customer need), C-5, C-6, and C-7 (should be amount of renewable conservation and demand-side management costs imbedded in the base rate paid by all customers; however, it should be allocated by customer segment; also, add green choice menu), D-2 (semi-unbundled rates), E-3, E-5, E-6, and add as E-7 "have environmental mitigation program to acknowledge that sustainability and environmental stewardship are linked to the generation strategy), F-3 and F-4 (only if it is a revenue generator and does not commit renewables already committed to the Eugene market), add additional strategy option that addresses affordability. Establish an affordability margin and benchmark rates to assess what could be accommodated within the margin. All added electives or options would have to be paid through the Green Plus menu option.
Commissioner Anderson: A-5 (would consider A-6, A-7, A-8, and A-9), B-3 and B-4, C-5 and C-6, D-2, E-3 and E-5, F-3 and F-4, G-6.
Commissioner Bishop: A-5, (would consider A-6, A-7, A-8, and A-9), B-3, C-4 or C-5, D-2 or D-3, E-2 and E-3, G-6
Mr. Maloney requested that as a homework assignment prior to the next IERP Work Session, Commissioners apply their individual strategies to all five futures and assess the results. He said he would send out all the revisions and necessary tables for the homework assignment in the next Board packet.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.