Board Members present: Sandra Bishop, Dorothy Anderson, Peter Bartel, and Susie Smith. President Dyer was excused.
Others present: Randy Berggren, Dean Ahlsten, Terry Bequette, Ken Beeson, Cathy Bloom, Tom Buckhouse, Dick Helgeson, Gary Jackson, Garry Kunkel, Jim Maloney, Roseanna McArthur, Jean Myers, Mat Northway, Jim Origliosso, Laurie Power, Scott Spettel, Dick Varner, Debra Wright, John Yanov, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Kim Kunkel, Minutes Recorder; Frank Nearing, KLCC Radio; and various members of the public.
Noting the absence of President Dyer, Vice President Bishop called the Work Session of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to order.
LANE TO IRVINGTON TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS
Referring to a memorandum, copies of which were included in the March 14 meeting agenda packet, Electric Engineering Manager Dean Ahlsten stated that the proposed agenda for this discussion would include the following topics: 1) why the West Eugene Electric Transmission Line is needed; 2) project description; 3) route evaluation; and 4) a proposed public process.
Noting that the West Eugene Electric Transmission Line Route is a long-term project, likely on a 10-year planning horizon, Mr. Ahlsten explained that the majority of work completed on this project to date has been completed "in house." He said the establishment of a "project team" and its creation of a proposed route evaluation process and public process were the first of many steps toward the design, evolution, and completion of this project. With regard to the Work Session discussion, Mr. Ahlsten said staff was particularly interested in obtaining Commissioners' feedback regarding the route evaluation process.
A. Why Does EWEB Need This Line?
Referring to several large display maps, Mr. Ahlsten presented an overview of the projected full build-out of EWEB's Electric Transmission System. Referring to a number of Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) zoning maps, Mr. Ahlsten reviewed the levels of power use forecast for the subject area. He explained that the demand projections, based upon low-density data, were applied to the subject the area to project future build-out and forecast future power use. Mr. Ahlsten stated that, based upon a 1.5 percent average growth rate over period of 10 years, a 250 average megawatt demand is forecast for the area in question. Noting that this was a conservative estimate, Mr. Alhsten said additional facilities would be needed to meet this projected future load demand. He explained that in an effort to precede the projected development, and ensure the utility's ability to meet this load demand, staff would like to begin its work on this project immediately.
B. Project Description
Referring to a series of slides, EWEB Senior Engineer Gary Jackson explained that the lines for the subject area must travel approximately 7.5 miles and presented a visual overview of several potential transmission line route options, including the following:
C. Route Evaluation Process
Mr. Jackson explained that the aforementioned project team, consisting of nine EWEB staff members, revisited the criteria EWEB applied during its last transmission review process. He said the team identified five areas of concern, as follows: 1) environmental, 2) governmental, 3) property, 4) social, and 5) technical.
Mr. Jackson said the team then created and utilized a decision matrix whereby it considered and weighted each area of concern in relation to the others in terms of whether it was 1) equally; 2) more; 3) much more; 4) less; or 5) much less important. He said the team reached consensus in its weighting of the areas of concern, as follows (listed in order from most to least important:)
1) environmental; 1) governmental; 3) property; 4) social; and 5) technical.
Mr. Jackson inquired as to whether the Board was comfortable with the order in which the team weighted the areas of concern.
Commissioner Smith said she was interested in knowing how the areas of concern related to EWEB's various policies and principles. Mr. Jackson presented a brief overview of EWEB's environmental policy, in part, in relation to the proposed West Eugene Electric Transmission Line.
Commissioner Smith inquired as to how cost was factored into the criteria and route review process. Mr. Jackson responded that cost, while calculated concurrent with staff's review of the routes against the criteria, would be considered apart from the criteria. He stated that although staff would like the "preferred route" and least expensive route to be the same, that may not be the outcome of the analysis. He noted that staff would conduct cost analyses of only those routes identified as "preferred."
With regard to the criteria, Commissioner Bartel said the Board should consider whether the undergrounding of electric transmission lines is a viable option. Commissioner Smith noted considering whether to underground the new West Eugene Transmission line would raise an equity issue because EWEB has not made an effort to underground transmission lines in other areas. She wondered whether EWEB's public involvement process could include discussion of "cost sharing," in which a given service area could elect to pay for an "enhanced option," such as undergrounding of transmission lines.
Vice President Bishop suggested that the Board consider and define its policy in terms of the undergrounding of transmission lines.
D. Public Process & Schedule
Mr. Jackson explained that after narrowing down the route segments to a few viable options, staff proposes to kick-off the public process component of the project in June with an "open house," during which citizens could ask questions of various experts concerning a wide range of issues, such as potential impacts on property values, and environmental impacts. He said the public process would conclude in August with a public meeting during which formal public input would be accepted. Mr. Jackson encouraged Commissioners to attend both the open house and public meeting.
Mr. Jackson requested feedback regarding the proposed public process.
Commissioner Anderson said she thought the open house was a good idea. She said notifying those citizens who would most likely be interested in this issue may be a challenge.
Commissioner Bartel encouraged staff to reach out to the larger environmentally active community. He suggested that staff contact the City of Eugene Planning and Development Department for a copy of its land use decision interested parties list. In addition, Commissioner Bartel said he thought the June-August time line for the public process was unrealistic given that City Council would not be in session and citizens are generally more busy during the summer months.
Commissioner Smith suggested adding to the "government" area of concern acknowledgment of the intergovernmental agreement between the City and EWEB concerning the undergrounding of power lines.
Vice President Bishop suggested holding at least two public meetings to provide the public a reasonable opportunity to provide comment. She said she agreed with Commissioner Bartel in terms of the proposed June-August time line and cautioned staff that adhering to such a time line places EWEB at risk of being accused of "short-circuiting" public involvement in this matter.
RESOURCE ROUND TABLE (CONTINUED)
Referring to a memorandum entitled New Resources Round Table -- Continued, copies of which were included in the meeting agenda packet, EWEB Resource Planning Analyst Jim Maloney stated that this was a continuation of the March 7 Work Session discussion regarding EWEB's current resource development opportunities. Noting that the March 7 Work Session included discussion of wind, hydroelectric, and gas options, Mr. Maloney recalled that outstanding issues from that meeting included: 1) a request that the Board "re-ground" in its fundamental principles and Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) Key Values; and 2) what is meant by "environmentally superior?" Mr. Maloney encouraged the Board to continue its discussion of EWEB's resource development options in light of the Energy Resource Strategy 2000 decision criteria as a means by which to determine areas for which more information is needed and which criteria may require clarification.
Vice President Bishop suggested that the Board rely upon its underlying principles and values in order to establish a common ground upon which the discussion of resource development opportunities can take place.
Commissioner Smith stated that the Board's principles and values clearly direct EWEB to invest in, develop, and procure renewable and sustainable resources. She said the non-renewable and non-sustainable resources will be developed by other entities. Commissioner Smith said she was "struck" by the fact that the options currently before the Board included few that were sustainable or renewable. She said she wondered what resource development opportunities exist that EWEB is overlooking or unaware of.
Vice President Bishop reported that she and President Dyer discussed the issue of resource development opportunities and concurred in their preference that EWEB move forward on resource tracks that include, but are not limited to those considered renewable or sustainable. She said they agreed it was likely that resources would be developed that fail to meet EWEB's environmental standards and that EWEB could participate in such projects with the understanding that they be directly tied to something that mitigates the environmental impact.
Commissioner Smith expressed her opinion that mitigating environmental impacts differed, in terms of its value to her, from creating a sustainable energy supply.
Commissioner Anderson stated that the size of the 500 megawatt Umatilla combustion turbine project was of concern to her.
Commissioner Bartel expressed his opinion that building non-sustainable resources to fund sustainable resource development was of no value and offered no net gain. In addition, he noted that EWEB has limited staff resources to dedicate to resource development.
Commissioner Smith said she wanted the Board to reach agreement on the types of resources EWEB would pursue, and how it would address resource opportunities that fall outside those parameters. Vice President Bishop suggested that, due to the late hour and the absence of President Dyer, the Board address this matter during its next retreat.
General Manager Randy Berggren clarified that EWEB is not considering the construction of a 500 megawatt project, but rather participation in and shaping of a privately-constructed project of which EWEB would utilize an average of 50 megawatts while establishing valuable partnerships.
Mr. Berggren stressed that the Board needed to get specific about its central generation strategy. He said staff was interested in knowing in what types of central generation opportunities the board is interested in, and what are the acceptable parameters around those opportunities in which staff can operate.
Following a brief discussion regarding whether the Board would revisit the CIC's resource acquisition direction, Mr. Maloney observed that EWEB continues to relive the question of what is the role of gas in the utility's portfolio. He said the Board must address that question prior to considering resource development opportunities. He proposed that staff schedule on a future meeting agenda adequate time for such a discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Assistant Secretary President