Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Web Jones: Where is impetus coming from? <br /> <br />Sue: West Slope communities have asked to look at a different <br />planning horizon; the state wide view needs to be consistent. <br />Other demands in the west slope basins: energy demands for <br />instance. Most municipalities are looking at 2050. <br /> <br />Bob Streeter: Do you think perhaps the impact on energy <br />development and demographics have made this especially <br />important to the west slope basins? <br /> <br />Sue: Yes, because everyone needs to show their demands. <br /> <br />Bob Streeter: What is the value of this projection? <br /> <br />Bert Weaver: DRCOG is struggling to go from 2030 to 2035 <br />with their projections; thus it becomes a credibility of data issue. <br /> <br />Sasha Charney: Climate change needs to be added to this <br />discussion and debated; how much more will we know that could <br />significantly impact; thus, climate change and going to 2050 <br />should be factored into the discussion; what we do and do not <br />know about that and how it will impact supply. <br /> <br />Mike Shimmin: I do not see the IBCC as making a decision; this <br />process is a bottom up process; the IBCC is reluctant to make a <br />decision and tell every basin how to work; thus, would be <br />shocked to tell every basin to use a 2050 planning horizon; I <br />understand why other basins want to look at a longer one. <br /> <br />Harold Evans: But isn't it a common issue to look for a statewide <br />common technical platform? <br /> <br />Mike: I agree, but am nervous about the fact that there will not <br />be a common technical platform because there are folks who will <br />not agree to use a common technical platform nor will we reach <br />for a centralized technical platform, because other basins are <br />going to say "no, we will use our numbers." <br /> <br />Sue: We have been given specific directions from CWCB and <br />DNR that there will be no money if there is not a common <br />technical platform; the discussion re 2030 v 2050 is not as <br />controversial as others. <br />This common technical platform is crucial in order to go <br />forward; CWCB is adamant about progressing from a common <br /> <br />5 <br />