Board Members present: Susie Smith, Mike Dyer, Sandra Bishop and Peter Bartel. Commissioner Dorothy Anderson was excused

Others present: Randy Berggren, Deb Brewer, Tom Buckhouse, Marty Douglass, Eric Hiaasen, Dick Helgeson, Garry Kunkel, Jim Maloney, Mat Northway, Jim Origliosso, Scott Spettel, Dick Varner, Debra Wright, John Yanov, and Lamonte Smith of the EWEB staff; members of the public; and Daniel Lindstrom, Minutes Recorder.

President Smith called the Work Session of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to order at 5:40 p.m.

Resource Planning Analyst Jim Maloney stated that the purpose of the Work Session was to seek confirmation that staff had properly interpreted deliberations of the Board and Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) regarding the Integrated Electric Resource Plan (IERP) in the Draft Action Plan distributed with the agenda of the meeting. He said he hoped it would be possible to determine if the level of specificity in strategy statements and descriptions was adequate, and to identify important elements omitted. He noted that the environmental policy had not been included in the draft and that it would be added.

Mr. Maloney said, if no major changes were made to the plan, he would distribute it in its current state to members of the CIC, inviting them to respond with evaluations within a month.

Mr. Maloney determined that Commissioners preferred to initially provide general comments on the plan, not line by line reactions.

President Smith said her initial reaction to the Action Plan was that it was overly general. She suggested that a format to be followed might include goals, strategies, and a time line for their completion.

Mr. Maloney stated that the plan had been developed based on the Board's expressed preference that targets be avoided. President Smith replied that she would still like to see goal-type statements, suggested approaches for reaching them, and time tables.

Commissioner Bishop said she agreed with President Smith, but that there were times when the format she proposed would not be possible and only general statements appropriate.

President Smith agreed with Commissioner Bishop and suggested that "milestone statements" could be developed. She also suggested that verbs such as "consider" and "investigate" included in many action statements needed to be given increased potency, or the plan might be "set on the shelf" and not lead to the desired results.

Mr. Maloney stated that staff had intentionally not incorporated budget implications in the plan, believing that such elements were more properly included in work planning and the budget review process. President Smith said such a tactic was appropriate - staff proposes, the Board determines budget support for strategies.

Commissioner Bartel stated that his initial reaction to the plan had been that its goals were more "aspirational" than "action" oriented.

Commissioner Dyer stated that he was satisfied with the level of specificity in the draft plan. He said he was concerned that a more specific plan would "pigeon hole" EWEB and eliminate flexibility. He wondered also about the ability to respond as changes in assumptions occurred.

President Smith said she agreed that flexibility was important in the document and suggested that annual Board review of it could evaluate whether strategies continued to be valid. Mr. Maloney added that a statement regarding flexibility was included in the document, as follows:

EWEB recognizes that while setting clear strategic direction is mandatory, maintaining the flexibility to respond to changing market/industry conditions and opportunities is also necessary.

Commissioner Dyer said he believed the draft plan captured a majority of the Board's positions on resource development.

Commissioner Bishop said she agreed with the general issues raised by President Smith. She said she appreciated the work that had gone into development of the document. She said she felt some of the action statements were "too timid," had no means of measurement, and lacked time lines. She suggested that, as used in the plan, words such as "solicit" and "investigate" were not adequately specific.

Commissioner Bishop said she appreciated the strategies developed in the plan, but that they did not meet requirements of an action plan. She suggested that it would be helpful if what was already engaged in and what was new was identified.

Commissioner Bartel suggested that the plan be designated as a "Strategy Action Plan."

Mr. Maloney stated that he had heard Commissioners suggest the draft plan was more a strategy than an action plan and that it was weak in measurement specifics.

Resource Planning Analyst Eric Hiaasen suggested that the plan be designated as a "Strategic Resource Plan" and that it be given more specificity in budget documents. Mr. Maloney added that such a scheme could incorporate issues and concerns of the Board and the Citizens Involvement Committee (CIC) which would be translated into budget-related documents.

Power Management and Planning Manager Scott Spettel suggested that an alternate scheme could be to prepare another iteration of the Action Plan with more specific verbs and measurements which would then be presented to the CIC.

Commissioner Bishop said she preferred the CIC to respond to the same document evaluated by the Board.

Commissioner Bartel said he preferred that initial evaluations be completed quickly to allow budget implications to be developed.

Mr. Maloney invited Commissioners to offer specific comments about substance of the draft plan.

Commissioner Bishop asked if the pledge of the Board "to invest at least three percent of its electric revenues in local conservation . . ." reported on page 1 referred to "above market costs." Mr. Spettel replied that the "three percent" figure had come up during the Regional Review process. The deliberating parties had decided on that level of funding for conservation, renewable energy, and low-income weatherization assistance. The conservation supported by the three percent was to be cost-effective when compared with regional estimates of the future price of power. In the case of renewables, that part of the three percent was meant to go towards offsetting the above market portion of the cost of new renewable energy resources. In EWEB's case, over the last few years we have supported cost-effective conservation activities in the community at about the five percent level. The above market costs for the output from Foote Creek Rim are in addition to the five percent.

Commissioner Bishop asked if the annual one percent increase in the portion of retail load served by new renewable energy resources reported on page 3 referred to a minimum or maximum goal. She also asked if a five-year plan might create a situation in which the increases would exceed a certain level and be curtailed. Mr. Maloney replied that the one percent target was a minimum annual goal and that he believed EWEB was currently ahead of it.

President Smith suggested that describing the amounts of renewable energy acquired as varying from year to year lacked specificity and should be changed. She also suggested that evaluation of the annual increments by the Board should be carried out on a regular basis.

Commissioner Bishop asked that the phrase "operational integration of a growing portion of intermittent renewable resources" be revised and clarified.

Commissioner Bishop requested that it be stipulated that customer information materials relating to disclosure of generation resource types identified on page 4 of the draft plan include data regarding renewable and all other resources.

Commissioner Bishop requested that the phrase "environmentally superior resources" used on page 4 be changed to a less comparative term. She said it could be challenged in its current wording. Mr. Maloney replied that the term had been used by the Board to differentiate between various generation projects, but that the public would not likely understand its implications and that he would provide an explanation for it.

Commissioner Bartel asked how the operations of Oregon Utility Resource Coordination Association (OURCA) would influence the draft plan. Mr. Spettel replied that the group of those involved in the potential power pool might be identified by the second quarter of 2000, or not until 2005, if all potential partners chose to lock up their power purchase options through the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

Commissioner Dyer suggested that the first fundamental policy of the Board identified on page 1 be changed, as follows:

We will ensure that our products and services are affordable and competitively priced.

Mr. Maloney said criteria for the policies had been previously set by the Board. He determined there was consensus to add the suggested phrase to the policy referred to by Commissioner Dyer.

Commissioner Bartel said he appreciated the "direction" of the strategies for promoting the development of renewable energy resources.

Commissioner Bishop suggested that identification of the Hyundai power supply on page 6 of the draft plan be changed to "contract customers." She also suggested that a more self-explanatory term than "cost-shifting" be used to describe rates and charges options described on page 6.

Mr. Maloney stated that he would distribute a "slightly edited version" of the draft plan to members of the CIC and that the Board should be able to take final action on it at its Regular Meeting in October. He requested that Commissioners submit additional suggestions for change and correction via e-mail.

The Work Session adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

_____________________________________ ______________________________________

Assistant Secretary President