EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
VIDA COMMUNITY CENTER
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
6 P.M.
Board Members present: Ron Farmer, Sandra Bishop, John Simpson, and Mel Menegat. Commissioner Patrick Lanning was excused.
Others present: Randy Berggren, Jim Wiley, Debra Smith, Dick Helgeson, Marty Douglass, Ken Beeson, Jim Origliosso, Roseanna McArthur, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Juan Welsh, McKenzie Watershed Council; Ruth Atcherson, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder; and members of the public.
President Farmer convened the Special Board Meeting of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) at 6 p.m. He conveyed the Board’s pleasure in meeting in Vida. He underscored that EWEB had a relationship with the McKenzie River Valley for 100 years and that he, as well as the Board as a whole, had the highest level of respect for the river. He noted that EWEB’s first power-generating turbine was on the McKenzie and that over 200,000 people received their drinking water from the river. He stressed that the utility tried not to take for granted its impact on the river.
AGENDA CHECK
Commissioner Menegat asked that Item 11 be moved forward to allow representatives of the McKenzie River Lions Club, who were presenting the item to depart if necessary.
PUBLIC INPUT
President Farmer opened the Public Input portion of the meeting and outlined the rules for testimony.
John Bennett, recently elected president of the Friends of Leaburg Lake Association, welcomed the EWEB Commissioners back to the community of Vida. He conveyed area residents’ appreciation for the Board’s willingness to meet up the river. He reported that there had been few complaints regarding the construction that had occurred over the previous summer. He felt residents appreciated the EWEB employees and staff who were willing to meet with them. He recommended a representative of the group be present when the turbine was checked and the lake raised in March, noting that he had discussed this with the Public Affairs Manager Marty Douglass. Mr. Douglass had indicated to him that he thought it was a good idea.
Leroy R. Pruitt submitted his testimony in writing. He felt his letters to the utility had met with no response. He had been fined $900 for dropping a tree on power lines. He related that he had sold some of his possessions and was close to bankruptcy. He asked the Board to forgive his debt. He said he had been to a doctor for his stress and could not afford the medicine his doctor prescribed for him. He asked that someone please talk to him about his inability to pay the bill.
Larry Levin welcomed the Board and thanked EWEB for the donations used to fix the building. He explained that he was the president of the McKenzie Lions Club. He provided a brief history of the Leaburg Library Building, which was once an old school house. He stated that the building needed upgrading in order to be of more use to area residents. He was fairly certain that some of the wiring dated back to its 1931 construction date, adding that it still had the knob and tube electrical boxes. He shared that the library was used quite a lot and a preschool met there three days a week. Alcoholics Anonymous also used the building for meetings. He noted that EWEB had helped in the past by purchasing lights for the building. The upgrades the club sought to make were estimated to cost $5,500. In closing, he said EWEB could ultimately use the building for meetings once it was upgraded.
John Papé commented that EWEB provided power for the area but the McKenzie area was not represented on the Board. He asked if there was a way to get representation and, if not, was that because EWEB fell under the City Charter of Eugene. He wanted to know if area residents were paying taxes, through their payments to EWEB, to the City of Eugene. If so, he asserted that would be taxation without representation. He also wondered why EWEB’s rates were 33 percent higher than those of the Springfield Utility Board (SUB).
Todd Linkletter said he was a professional fishing guide. He explained that the river was facing drought conditions once again and these conditions were right on the heels of a near record spring Chinook run. He was worried for anglers such as himself. He noted that during part of the previous year the power canal was shut down and the water was back in the river because of work on the dam and this had created cooler water temperatures and better fishing. He stated that the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) had spent $80 million on temperature towers to cool the water flowing down, but the water warmed up quite a bit after it left the dam. He predicted, in looking at the long-term prospect of less snow, that it would be critical to salmon survival that water remain in the river. He stressed that impacts to fish survival were also impacts to tourism.
John Gross echoed Mr. Linkletter’s remarks, as he, too, was a professional
fishing guide. He emphasized the importance of having cooler water below the Leaburg dam. He also hoped the Board would look into the possibility of a reduction in the amount of water going into the canal. He said this would make a huge difference in the future of the fish.
Craig Patterson spoke regarding the relicensing of the Carmen Smith facility. He said he had been attending meetings on it for nine months. He felt there was confusion about what to do because there were not enough fish between Trail Bridge and the Carmen Smith Reservoir. He thought a lot of money was being spent on the problem without understanding how much mitigation would cost and what mitigation would be comprised of. He understood that relicensing would cost approximately $30 million. He said the area could use economic stimulation and it would help if there were a way to involve the community in some of the work and economically tie the project to local residents.
President Farmer called for comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Menegat noted that a two-day public meeting on aquatic studies related to the Carmen Smith project had begun earlier in the day at the North EWEB Building. He said 25 people had been in attendance. He welcomed Mr. Patterson and anyone else who were interested to attend the second meeting, to be held on February 2.
Vice President Bishop was glad to be in Vida and thanked those who provided comments. She asked staff for background information on the water temperature issue brought up by two of those who spoke during the Public Input portion of the meeting.
Vice President Bishop acknowledged the patience and work of the Friends of Leaburg Lake Association. She reiterated that they would receive the information on the lake as soon as it was available. In response to the question regarding the City Charter, she stated that the Charter governed EWEB and the Charter fell solely under the governance of the City. She said in order to change it, McKenzie Valley residents would have to convince the residents of the City of Eugene to vote to change it. She was uncertain whether McKenzie Valley residents were paying taxes to the City.
To Mr. Pruitt, Vice President Bishop expressed hope that there was a way to provide some relief for his situation.
Commissioner Simpson echoed Vice President Bishop’s sentiments regarding Mr. Pruitt’s testimony. He reiterated that staff would look into what sort of relief the utility could offer.
Commissioner Simpson conveyed his appreciation for the comments in regard to the impact water temperatures had on fish. He said he would meet with the staff environmentalist and discuss the situation.
Commissioner Simpson thanked residents for their patience while the lake raise had been delayed. He related that he had been told by staff that there would be one day wherein during an eight hour period the lake level would be raised three or four times. While staff thought it could be raised as much as 18 inches, the lake raise was more likely to be only four to six inches. He underscored that this adjustment was to compensate for the new fish screen that had been installed.
Commissioner Simpson congratulated Mr. Bennett on becoming president of the Friends of Leaburg Lake Association.
President Farmer estimated that the lake raise test would happen in the middle of March. He said the utility was nearly finished with the Leaburg/Walterville relicensing and was not anticipating any further road closures.
Regarding Board representation by area residents, President Farmer explained that there were also customers around the City of Eugene that were in “the same boat,” i.e. without representation.
In response to Mr. Levin, President Farmer indicated his preference for leveraging funds. He said he would like to see EWEB provide matching funds or, perhaps, participating in partnership with another entity to help with the necessary improvements to the Leaburg Library.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes
Vice President Bishop pulled the minutes from the Regular Board Meeting held on December 7, 2004.
Commissioner Menegat, seconded by Commissioner Simpson, moved approval of the Consent Calendar with the exception of the aforementioned minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0.
ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Commissioner Menegat reported on his appearance before the Rubicon Society. He said the general focus of their interest was on the headquarters building and there was some concern about the contribution in lieu of taxes (CILT). He related that there had also been a suggestion that EWEB be more proactive in the Carmen Smith relicensing. He felt EWEB was being proactive. He added that it had been a lively group.
Commissioner Menegat also shared that he had been honored to be a presenter at the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Appreciation Dinner. He had presented the Outstanding Intergovernmental Team award, which went to Karl Morgenstern, EWEB Drinking Water Source Protection Coordinator, and the McKenzie Emergency Response System, a 27-member unit whose focus was to be able to respond to potential spills of contaminants into the watershed. He read the award into the record, as follows:
“In appreciation for their dedicated service, leadership, and commitment to the strengthening of local government through regional cooperation Karl Morgenstern and the McKenzie Watershed Emergency Response System are recognized by the Lane Council of Governments as the 2004 outstanding intergovernmental team.”
He said Mr. Morgenstern had done an excellent job of honoring those who worked with him and the team process as it went forward.
Commissioner Menegat reminded those present that public meetings on the Carmen Smith project were continuing. He stated that, after the meeting of February 2, there would be a meeting on February 8 to discuss the terrestrial studies and a meeting on February 9 to discuss the social science studies.
Vice President Bishop reported that there was a bill before the State Legislature that would mandate fluoridation of water. She predicted that this could cost EWEB $1 to $2 million. She opined that it was not a decision the State should make, but rather should fall under local governance. She felt the argument was ultimately one of whether there should be local control of the water supply.
Commissioner Simpson shared that he had just returned from a trip to Costa Rica and Panama. He said a great deal of power was generated by diesel fuel in that area. He returned with a renewed appreciation for EWEB and its hydroelectric and wind-generated power.
Commissioner Simpson commented that his grandfather had helped build a cabin up the river in Rainbow and it was still in the family. He said the McKenzie River had been important to him his whole life. He recognized that the McKenzie Valley area residents did not have representation on the Board and offered to make himself available to listen to any concerns residents might have. He noted that he also served on the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC). He asked that residents feel they have a “clear and open pathway” to communicate their concerns regarding the utility and its operations.
President Farmer reported that he had reviewed the MWC business plan, at their request. He said he was pleasantly surprised by what he found. He related that they had made much progress and it had been done very professionally.
President Farmer noted television reporter, Rick Dancer, for KEZI earlier in the day, had interviewed him and the topic had been the EWEB property.
CORRESPONDENCE
General Manager Randy Berggren reported the following:
Vice President Bishop asked Mr. Berggren to describe the result of the ACOE action. Mr. Berggren explained that EWEB had proposed an environmental project which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) had approved, but the ACOE had denied it and chose to fine EWEB instead.
In response to another question from Vice President Bishop, Mr. Berggren explained that the proposed project had been to dredge the tailrace. Mr. Wiley elaborated, stating that it the dredging was to occur on the downstream side and was intended to help the fish toward the fish return channel. He stated that at this time there were no plans to conduct the dredging given the current budget constraints.
BOARD AGENDAS
Mr. Berggren provided an overview of the Eugene Water & Electric Board: Board Agenda Report; February 1, 2005.
Vice President Bishop asked if there was time to schedule a discussion on regional representation. Mr. Berggren said he would make a note to schedule some time for it. Vice President Bishop suggested it be part of a Board retreat.
Commissioner Simpson asked who the staff representative was for the Region 2050 planning group. Mr. Berggren responded that Deborah Brewer represented EWEB there. Mr. Douglass added that Ms. Brewer had technical support.
PRESIDENT RON FARMER’S ANNUAL MESSAGE
President Farmer gave his annual message, as follows:
“The Eugene Water & Electric Board has faced a number of tough challenges over the past few years. Most of these were the result of the 2001 energy crisis and five consecutive years of below-normal precipitation that forced EWEB to raise rates and cut budgets.
“Currently, the issue of whether EWEB should or should not sell most of its 27-acre headquarters site, and to whom, is receiving almost as much local publicity as the energy crisis rate increases of 2001.
“The issue is both perplexing and complex. At its crux, however, the issue is not whether we should sell to Triad, nor is it whether our headquarters office building is a wonderful building in a great location. The issues is how does EWEB fund the necessary building improvements needed for its ongoing operations.
“Driving across the Ferry Street Bridge, you see a relatively new EWEB headquarters building. What you do not readily see is that three-quarters of EWEB’s 27 acres are devoted to non-headquarters functions, such as water and electric materials storage yards, a steam plant, a substation that serves downtown, a 53-year-old operations center, vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair shops, and other assorted out-buildings.
“If everyone worked in the headquarters building, there would be no need for EWEB to move. But they don’t. In fact, slightly less than half of the utility’s employees work outside the administration building.
“Most of these facilities are run down and in need of replacement. The operations center and warehouse, built more than 50 years ago, is falling apart and is too small. Major maintenance has been delayed for years, pending a decision on whether EWEB will relocate.
“We no longer can provide highly reliable and high-quality electric and water services out of World War II-era Quonset huts. The crews that do the hard, physical labor at EWEB— from getting your power back on after a big storm to laying water pipes— must have the facilities they need to do their jobs right and safely.
“So, regardless of whether EWEB moves or stays, some of our facilities will need to be replaced. Building a new operations center and warehouse at the current site is estimated at more than $10 million alone.
“EWEB has no money to pay for these improvements. Potential funding sources are rate increases or proceeds from the sale of property. So the fundamental choice at hand is: Do we want to raise rates in excess of $10 million dollars to fund upgrades at our current location, or do we want to sell our existing location to fund a move to new facilities?
“The question we are most often asked is “Why does EWEB want to move?" Actually, we don’t really want to move, but, after six rate increases in five years, using proceeds from the sale of property to make much-needed improvements is an appealing alternative to raising electric and water rates to pay for them.
“Prior EWEB boards were well aware of the need to deal with deteriorating facilities. Our long-range site planning began in the 1990s, well before the current “hospital wars” erupted in Eugene-Springfield. A 2002 report identified a number of operational problems on the non-headquarters part of the current site. These have only continued to worsen as time has passed and our community has grown.
“The utility also has been searching for land to use as a potential new site for several years. The utility entered into an earnest money agreement to purchase a site on Seneca Street in 2002, but that option fell through when soil tests proved unworkable. EWEB has negotiated for the purchase of other sites since then. Late last year, we entered into a preliminary option to purchase a site in northwest Eugene for use as a future location, either for our operations yard or headquarters, or both.
“This year, this Board is likely to make some important property decisions that will have a big impact on EWEB for decades to come.
“But let’s make this clear: This is a decision for EWEB and its citizen-customers. We are not being forced to move. Nor are we willing to sell the property at the expense of our customers. We will relocate, only if it is in the best interest of the utility.
“Let’s also make this clear: We have not sold the property. A lot of work still needs to be done before EWEB is in a position of knowing its true relocation costs. That information will drive our final decision.
“Our property issue, while time consuming, certainly isn’t the only major issue the utility dealt with in 2004 nor is it the only major one we will deal with in 2005.
“Highlighting some of our action items in 2004:
“Carmen is our lowest-cost source of electricity, and has provided customers with steady, reliable power for more than 40 years. EWEB may have to spend $10 million or more, just to do the necessary work in 2005 and 2006 to apply for a new license. We do not know the ultimate cost of relicensing, but it surely will run in the tens of millions of dollars.
“My goal as Board President is to successfully utilize and facilitate the tremendous skill, knowledge and insight this Board possesses. I believe the strength of a layman citizen board lies in its diverse backgrounds. If we commit to finding common ground for the ultimate benefit of the utility, we can meet any and all of our challenges.
“I, and the rest of the Board, will listen to and lean heavily on the help of EWEB’s skilled staff and the valued input of our 83,000 customer-owners to meet those challenges.
“Thank you.”
REQUEST FOR BOARD DONATION FROM MCKENZIE RIVER LIONS CLUB FOR ELECTRIC UPGRADE AT OLD LEABURG SCHOOL BUILDING
Mr. Douglass presented the request for $5,500 for the electrical upgrade
submitted by the McKenzie River Lions Club, as outlined in the memorandum entitled Donation Request for Electric Upgrade at Old Leaburg School Building dated January 26, 2005. He felt it would be a better place for the Board to meet with residents, as it was more centrally located and that it would build on the relationship that EWEB sought to foster with area residents as well. He conveyed staff’s recommendation to approve the request.
Vice President Bishop moved to approve the request for a Board donation of $5,500 for an electric upgrade at the old Leaburg School Building. Commissioner Menegat provided the second.
Commissioner Menegat expressed some concern that this could set a precedent in participating in projects such as this. He felt staff had adequately addressed this and, as it was a community building, it was important to help fund the upgrade for both safety and conservation reasons. He noted that the old knob and tube electrical systems were volatile. He also wished to acknowledge the importance of a library to all kinds of people. He indicated he would support the motion.
Commissioner Simpson supported the motion. He hoped EWEB would have the opportunity to use the building for a meeting space. He also hoped some sort of community education about EWEB could be provided, such as maps of the system and information on how it worked.
Vice President Bishop thought this was one way to acknowledge that EWEB and the McKenzie Valley were in a symbiotic relationship. She appreciated being able to make a small contribution back to the community. Regarding potential matching funds, she felt certain the Lions Club had raised such funds.
Speaking to this, Mr. Levin stated that there were sources of funding including funding for the library and funding chipped in by the fire department, which owned the building. He noted that the attic was infested with bats, which they hoped to relocate.
Commissioner Simpson encouraged Mr. Levin to save several of the knob and tube type electric technology for the creation of a historic display.
President Farmer supported the motion. He was concerned that there were not clear criteria for how requests for donations were differentiated. He advocated for the formation of a clear policy.
Ms. Smith stated that there was a clear policy. She suggested the Board review it and make changes, should they be deemed necessary. Mr. Berggren related that this particular donation had a demonstrated linkage to the charter.
The motion passed unanimously, 4:0.
GENERAL MANAGER’S 2005 GOALS
Mr. Berggren said staff was still not sure if they had the full Board’s view on the goals and, as such, whether the Board was ready to adopt it.
President Farmer felt the Board might need input from Vice President Bishop and Commissioner Simpson. He had submitted six goals, as did Commissioner Menegat. He remarked that he could have “lived with it” to begin with, but he thought the document needed more fleshing out.
Vice President Bishop cited financial stability and employees as two primary areas she thought goals should focus upon. She thought the Draft – January 27, 2005; Eugene Water & Electric Board General Manager Goals represented a head start on the process, but that there was “too much” in them. She did not think it necessary to have a headquarters master plan incorporated into the goals.
Commissioner Simpson said he was drawn to Commissioner Menegat’s goal under Communications regarding increased use of the Web site. He also agreed with Vice President Bishop’s observation that a headquarters master plan was not necessarily a goal for the general manager. However, he indicated that the fifth goal (pursue actions to obtain the best value for the existing headquarters site property), under headquarters master plan, should be retained. He felt it prudent to keep in written form the importance of obtaining the best value for the existing headquarters property. He suggested that he would benefit by having two more weeks to sign off on the list and add one or two of his own recommendations for goals.
Commissioner Menegat understood items (1) through (8) to be those that the Board identified earlier in the process. Ms. Smith affirmed that they had arisen from the original brainstorming session, which is listed as follows:
General Manager Goals
Draft – January 27, 2005
Financial Stability
1. Develop contingency plans to assure the financial budget is met as approved. Plans should address the most likely deviations from projection (Ron & Mel)
2. Establish and meet financial benchmark measurements that reflect ongoing improvement at interim target dates. (Ron)
3. Develop defined financing plan for Carmen Smith relicensing with measurable interim achievement goals. (Ron & Mel)
Headquarters Master Plan
4. Pursue acquisition of an alternative site for the future relocation of all or part of EWEB’s current downtown facilities and operations (Ron & Mel
5. Pursue actions to obtain the best value for the existing headquarters site property. (Ron & Mel)
Communications
6. Develop a plan for increased use of the EWEB website for conducting business and communicating with customers and include an analysis of how that shift will impact future relations. The plan should be complete in time to provide input to the 2006 budget. (Mel)
7. Develop a communications strategy to generate acceptance and public support for EWEB’s programs and projects. (Mel) Specifically – (Action Steps)
8. Provide input to the Board President to facilitate recognition of outstanding employees by the Board on an annual basis. (Mel – Expanded)
Mr. Berggren commented that the process was beginning to feel like it had in 1999 a year in which the Board had come up with more goals than could be met.
President Farmer called it relatively unfair to take more time on the process. He opined that the goals should be “rolled out” by January 1. He commented that he would not prefer, in his own job, to be presented goals for the year after three months had already passed.
Commissioner Simpson thought item (7) was not a general manager goal so much as it should be a goal of the Public Relations Department.
Vice President Bishop expressed discomfort with item (5). She opined that it should be something that adequately reflected the Board. She felt, as written, the goal “backed into Board actions.” President Farmer averred that the Board was already pursuing the purchase of the Roosevelt Boulevard site.
Vice President Bishop questioned the necessity of calling item (5) a goal. President Farmer underscored that it was one of the more important things that was happening and that it was a fact that the Board and utility was faced with the future relocation of all or part of the EWEB facilities. He felt the general manager had been instructed to pursue the purchase.
Vice President Bishop asked that the goal be revised, as follows:
(5) Pursue actions to obtain the best value for the existing headquarters site property if it’s sold.
There were no objections.
Ms. Smith thought item (8) might be changed into an action step for a goal related to employees. She acknowledged that both Vice President Bishop and Commissioner Menegat had indicated that they wished to regain the trust of employees after the recent bargaining process.
President Farmer commented that the goal regarding the Web site should not require the general manager to make the Web site so much as it was to ensure that he had a communication plan in place for the purpose of educating the public regarding issues that the utility faced.
Vice President Bishop concurred, adding that she also wanted some idea for a strategy for increasing public input.
President Farmer suggested the following wording:
“Develop a communication plan to identify and address significant issues.”
Vice President Bishop wanted the goal to include enhancement of the public process. She advocated for engaging the public at the beginning of an issue. Ms. Smith asked Vice President Bishop if she wanted to eliminate item (6) altogether. Vice President Bishop affirmed that she did.
Commissioner Simpson said the community provided input, but he did not think EWEB did a good enough job of telling them what sort of input was being sought.
Regarding a goal oriented toward employees, Commissioner Simpson said he wanted employees to be happy and well compensated.
Commissioner Menegat commented that early on in the goals process the Board had decided there was not enough recognition of outstanding employees. He saw in the utility community things happening such as the SHARP award and the Health Fair. He thought, within the organization, that the utility was doing a good job of meeting employee needs and did not believe that Mr. Berggren would be able to keep all of the employees happy all of the time.
Vice President Bishop suggested item (8), which suggested as a goal that the general manager should provide input to the Board regarding recognition of outstanding employees, be stricken.
President Farmer recommended that staff wordsmith the goals and send it out electronically so that the Board could move to approve it at the meeting scheduled for February 15.
MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL – 2004 ANNUAL REPORT
Juan Welsh presented the annual report on behalf of Council Coordinator, Megan Finnessy, who was unable to be in attendance. He conveyed his pleasure at being able to share the report with the Board and reacquaint them with the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC). He provided an overview of the work of the MWC, as outlined in the memorandum from the MWC to the EWEB Board regarding McKenzie Watershed Council Annual Briefing. He underscored that the primary focus of the MWC was the ecological restoration of the watershed ecosystem. He said the MWC relied heavily on the contributions of its partners to complete projects because of funding shortfalls. He cited a culvert restoration project on Simmons Creek undertaken to restore a Chinook salmon run as an example of partnership furthering a project. He stated that the MWC had been able to leverage funding to do the design work for this and then was able to engage the Forest Service and the Lane County Board of Commissioners in the project.
Vice President Bishop asked how long the salmon had been cut off. Mr. Welsh replied that the road and culvert had been installed in 1967 or 1968. In response to another question, Mr. Welsh said there were ways to encourage the fish to return to the area to spawn, such as stocking it with fishery hatchlings.
Mr. Welsh discussed the McKenzie Watershed Council Framework for
Collaboration. He explained that the MWC staff included Kate Fershwiler, education coordinator, and Megan Finnessy, lead staff worker. He said there was a part-time confluence coordinator who focused on issues involving the confluence of the rivers.
Mr. Welsh explained the McKenzie Watershed Council Goals. He noted that water quality was monitored by “lots of different entities” and the MWC tried to coordinate them. He said the assessment work conducted by the MWC had resulted in a conservation strategy that ultimately focused largely on projects in the lower basin. He discussed several of the projects most recently undertaken, such as other culvert diversions.
Regarding the fiscal resource management, Mr. Welsh stated that the MWC was working on its business plan and was working on becoming a non-profit entity as well. He said for the last six or seven years all of the fiscal matters had been handled by an agency in Corvallis, but it was hoped to take on more of that work in house in the future. He underscored that the fiscal resources included in the report did not include funding that had been leveraged for projects.
In closing, Mr. Welsh emphasized that the MWC was one of the oldest watershed councils in the State and was focused on pushing forward salmon restoration.
Vice President Bishop asked if the Oregon Plan was the same thing as the Salmon Plan and when it had been initiated. Mr. Welsh responded that it was the same thing and had been put in place in 1998.
Vice President Bishop asked if the present partners’ funding was stable. Mr. Welsh replied that the MWC operated on a year-to-year budget basis and was well aware that its partners had their own budget shortfalls. He said, for instance, that the MWC would likely be first on the budget “chopping block” in the City of Eugene.
Commissioner Simpson asked what EWEB could do to help the MWC stay whole. Mr. Welsh said, in looking at the partners in the MWC, EWEB was at the top as far as the utility’s commitment. He appreciated EWEB. He noted that MWC staff often called the United States Fish and Wildlife Department representative, Jeff Ziller. He said they would love to interact more with Tim Downey of EWEB. He wished there was more staff to help with restoration. He noted that EWEB had a new fish biologist on staff, adding that he welcomed more input.
ENERGY MATTERS RESOLUTION
Power Resources Division Director Dick Helgeson recalled that Steve Weiss had presented the Energy Matters Resolution in June, 2004, a resolution from the Northwest Energy Coalition (NWEC). Because the utility had been in the midst of the Integrated Energy Resource Plan (IERP), the Board had decided to defer a decision on whether to join in signing the statement until the IERP was completed. He conveyed staff’s concern that there was too much information in the resolution as related to energy management in general, though it was the kind of resolution the Board would normally choose to adopt.
Vice President Bishop said there were a lot of diverse entities that were members in the NWEC. She stated that as a member, EWEB would not be signing on to everything in the resolution. She underscored that EWEB was a valued member of the NWEC. As such, she did not think the NWEC would overstep its authority. She indicated that she was comfortable with the resolution as it was written.
Commissioner Menegat expressed concern about the core statement of the resolution, which asserted that all future load growth would be met with renewable energy and efficiencies. While he supported this idea, he did not think the utility should restrict itself especially given that the utility stood to potentially utilize natural gas for power generation at a future point.
Vice President Bishop asserted that the load growth was a small percentage of the overall power usage.
Commissioner Simpson observed that fossil fuel reserves were winding down. He preferred to take a leadership position and show that EWEB was on the “bandwagon” for conserving as much energy as possible. He supported signing the resolution, calling it a show of faith. He averred it paralleled the IERP decisions and did not preclude having a gas-fired power generation facility. He supported signing the resolution.
President Farmer asked how the NWEC defined the goal. Mr. Helgeson replied that there were areas that were specifically not renewable resources and these areas tended to “not get a lot of play” in EWEB’s process. He thought there was some debate regarding the environmental impacts of cogeneration, much of which was fueled by fossil fuels. He said EWEB already saved 2.5 megawatt hours (MWH) per year through conservation. He related that he had asked Mr. Weiss about it and he seemed to think that EWEB was meeting the goals, given the order of magnitude of the utility.
President Farmer asked why no other utilities were signing off. Mr. Helgeson responded that others like EWEB were supporting the resolution. He commented that EWEB did not lack for representation of its point of view with the BPA and the regional council. He did not think the coalition had actively promoted the resolution and as a result they did not get the broad support they could have.
President Farmer echoed Commissioner Menegat’s concerns. He did not believe he could sign on to a resolution that sounded like a commitment to meeting all future load growth needs with renewable resources, especially given that the NWEC was not including hydroelectric power as a renewable resource.
Mr. Helgeson said in fairness he raised the issue with Mr. Weiss and Mr. Weiss had opined that EWEB was “making too much of it.” He related that Mr. Weiss averred the resolution was a general expression of intent. He did not have qualms about it.
President Farmer reiterated his discomfort with the resolution and indicated he was not willing to support it.
Mr. Helgeson surmised it was a split vote. He suggested that staff craft a letter that indicated that the Board supported the resolution in concept but was not willing to sign off on it as it was written.
Vice President Bishop thought that was a reasonable compromise. President Farmer agreed.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice President Bishop offered the following correction to the minutes of the Regular Board Meeting held on December 7, 2004:
• Page 5, paragraph 3: “Vice President Bishop announced that State Senator Joan Dukes had been appointed to the Northwest Power Planning and Conversation Conservation Council.”
It was moved by Commissioner Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Menegat, to approve the December 7, 2004 Regular Board Meeting Minutes. Motion passed.
President Farmer adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
_____________ ______________________________________
Assistant Secretary President