BC Hydro 2005 Integrated Electricity Plan (IEP) Fort St. John Regional Workshop 2 Final Meeting Notes

Transcription

1 Workshop Date and Location March 3, 2005 Super 8 Motel 9500 Alaska Way, Fort St. John, B.C. Attendees Name Sandy Hull Wally Gentles Karrilyn Vince Terry Webster Claudia Houwers Larry Houley Larry Peterson Ross Peck Ken Hall Gwen Johansson Albert Erbe Katrina Keuth Karen Goodings Affiliation Village of Pouce Coupe None Peace Habitat and Conservation Endowment Trust District of Hudson s Hope Wildland Resources Peace River Regional District Landowner Landowner, Custodians of the Peace Peace Habitat and Conservation Endowment Trust Peace Williston Advisory Committee Peace River Regional District Women s Institute / PRRD Agriculture Advisory Committee Peace River Regional District BC Hydro/IEP Representatives Name Organization and Department Role Dave Conway BC Hydro/Community Relations Host Mary Hemmingsen Rohan Soulsby Cam McAlpine Al Laidlaw BC Hydro/Power Planning and Portfolio Management BC Hydro/Power Planning and Portfolio Management JaJa Communications/ External Consultant BC Hydro/Environmental and Social Issues Manager, Bennett Dam IEP Presenter/Workshop Facilitator IEP Presenter/Workshop Facilitator Note Taker Observer Discussion Highlights As with the previous day s workshop, there was a wide diversity of opinion about preferred resource options, although opinions did not vary as much as the previous day. Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 1 of 12

2 In the Direct Rankings. Power Smart and wind were the most favoured options; natural gas, coal and biomass were the least favoured. In the Swing Weighting. Because participants considered land and inundation impacts so important, wind power fell near the bottom during the swing weighting exercise. Overall, Power Smart, small hydro and geothermal were the most favoured based on the value exercises, while coal, large hydro, natural gas and biomass were the least favoured. There was a distinct split between the top four most important attributes (land and water impacts, greenhouse gases, and local emissions) and the four least important (temporary and permanent jobs, cost and number of projects). Strong opposition to Site C. As with the previous day s workshop, participants strongly opposed Site C. Many questions arose about whether the figures used in the exercises to value large hydro were correct (see highlight below). Participants suggested the impacts would be much greater, and that if the true figures were used, large hydro would not be a viable resource option. Figures used in exercises. There was much discussion about the accuracy of the figures used in the exercises, whether they were valid, and also the worth of the exercises themselves. The primary discussion points revolved around the following: The quality and quantity of information may not be sufficient to make good decisions. Participants said there wasn t enough information and that more than numbers need to be used in calculating impacts. New technologies are not factored in. There was discussion of a number of new and emerging technologies to reduce emissions from natural gas and biomass and to clean coal. It was noted that, because these technologies are not in widespread use, they were not factored into the value exercises. There was also concern that other emissions, such as greenhouse gases from large hydro, were not given enough weight. Unit energy costs were considered to be inaccurate. Participants noted federal incentives, research and development, and other costs and benefits were not factored in, and could therefore change the relative importance of the different options. There were very strong objections to the figures used to calculate land and water impacts from large hydro. (See Site C highlight above.) It was argued that the weight of the footprint was not adequately considered. It was recommended that full life cycle costing should be built into the system. (See highlight below.) Environmental impacts and the triple bottom line. Participants were very interested in seeing BC Hydro involved in more research and development of alternative technologies that will reduce the environmental impact of energy production. They recommended full cost accounting be used, including the upstream and downstream costs, and that the methods in which imported energy is produced be subject to the same triple bottom line accounting as power produced domestically. Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 2 of 12

3 Regional balance and representation. The group unanimously supported a recommendation that every effort be made to generate power closest to the load it will supply. Alternatively, if resource developments in the North supply demand elsewhere in the province, those closest to the resource should receive some local benefits. 1. Introduction and Overview 1.1 Participant Introductions Dave Conway welcomed participants and introduced the IEP team. He noted that facilitator Michael Harstone was unable to attend the workshop and that Mary Hemmingsen would be filling his role as facilitator for the day. Mary took over, and began by asking participants to introduce themselves and describe one particular interest in the IEP process: Ken Hall is a resident of Charlie Lake and a member of the Peace Habitat and Conservation Endowment Trust with an interest in preserving the Peace River Valley. Sandy Hull is a councilor with the Village of Pouce Coupe and has an interest in the future plans for serving the area s energy needs. Claudia Houwers is a biologist and her main interest is looking at the impacts on wildlife in an area from any resource development. Karrilyn Vince said her interest is in sustainability and the impacts of resource development on the Peace River Valley. Ross Peck is a landowner, a registered professional biologist, a guide outfitter, a member of the Peace Valley Environmental Association and of the Custodians of the Peace, as well as a Muskwa-Kechika management board member. He stated his main interest was ensuring Site C is removed from the energy plan. Larry Houley is a director with the Peace River Regional District with an interest in preserving the Peace Valley and finding out how hydro fits into the energy plan. Larry Peterson is a landowner and the only person who bought back Site C land from BC Hydro. His interests are in looking at alternate ways to produce power, and ensuring proper information is being used in IEP. Albert Erbe is a Peace River Regional District director and is interested in finding out more about alternative energy in general, especially wind power and other options. Al Laidlaw is the environmental and social issues manager at the Bennett Dam and is at the workshop as an observer. Wally Gentles is a landowner in the Peace Valley near Hudson s Hope with an interest in the impacts of dams and other power options. Terry Webster is a recently-elected Hudson s Hope councilor with an interest in alternative small energy options. Gwen Johannson is at the workshop as a Peace Williston Advisory Committee(PWAC) representative and as the northern representative on the Provincial IEP Committee. She was Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 3 of 12

4 there to listen to everybody and to bring their questions and concerns forward to the provincial level. Katrina Keuth sits on the PRRD Agriculture Advisory Committee, and is interested in alternative and more reliable energy sources. 1.2 Overview of Workshop and IEP Mary began with an overview of the workshop. She then provided an overview of the workshop objectives as follows: The overall objective is to provide a forum to learn, share and express regional preferences about future energy options for the province. During the current round of stakeholder engagement, the objective is to obtain regional input about different future electricity resource options (wind, gas, hydro, etc.). A follow-up series of sessions will take place in the fall to obtain regional input about key questions and highlights from the portfolio analysis. 1.3 Update on 2004 IEP Mary provided a summary of the 2004 IEP process, results and reviewed the preparation of the 2005 IEP process. 1.4 Overview of 2005 IEP Mary provided an overview of the IEP objectives and engagement principles for Feedback from Tuesday night s information session Mary provided a summary of key themes from the Tuesday night information session discussion with regard to what participants considered important in the IEP planning process. They are summarized as follows: high value for environment and sustainability support for research into newer technologies (that is, sour gas flaring, agricultural digester) improve and retrofit existing facilities (resource smart) take advantage of existing opportunities to generate electricity (i.e., biomass) support for conservation initiatives (Power Smart, stepped rates, etc.) consider loss of use of land (that is, impacts on wildlife) need to consider full cost accounting low and reasonable costs for new electricity options concern about aesthetic impacts concern about regional equity local benefits in return for footprint impacts need to address transmission line losses (that is, distance to market) concern for how Burrard Thermal is treated in IEP support for public ownership of BC Hydro Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 4 of 12

5 1.6 Questions and discussion arising from IEP overview Is the IEP a 20-year plan based on 2004 or 2005 as a start date? When does the 20 years officially begin? BC Hydro s response was that the plan is a rolling plan that is continually reevaluated every two years, and is, therefore, always a 20-year plan with no start or end date. The IEP process is a result of a commitment made in BC Hydro s Revenue Requirement Application. Why is nuclear energy not part of the Energy Plan? BC Hydro s response was that it has been government policy to not consider nuclear energy as part of the current planning process. It was noted that many people have raised the issue in workshops, and that participants interest in the potential of nuclear power will be part of the reporting-out following this round of stakeholder engagement. Is there a specific workshop involving northern First Nations, including Treaty 8 nations and the Kaska Dene? BC Hydro s response was that yes, a meeting is scheduled for sometime within the next two weeks. As for individual First Nation involvement, it was committed that BC Hydro would provide that information. I ve heard it said we re net importers? Do we consume more energy than we produce? BC Hydro s response was that B.C. has sufficient capability in the province to meet expected demand. Sometimes it s cheaper to buy energy for a lower price in the US and keep water in the reservoirs. So it has been a choice to be a net importer because it provides economic benefit to ratepayers. Are we concerned about how the energy B.C. imports is produced? Does it meet our environmental standards here in BC? That is a concern that has been raised and will likely be pursued in the IEP process. As you go through the two-year IEP reviews, will the Provincial IEP Committee (PIEPC) remain in place? Yes, the hope is to maintain continuity of membership on the committee, which is currently comprised of key interveners in the regulatory process and is regionally and demographically balanced. How will you reconcile the views of different regions given the imbalance in population between the north and south? BC Hydro s response is that there is an awareness that there will need to maintain a balance of regional views in the process. How fast do they expect Site C to be silted in (and therefore experience reduced viability)? How does sodium runoff from coal bed methane sites affect the Site C option and other issues such as water quality (portability and usability for generation)? BC Hydro responded that scientific and technical issues such as the above two questions will be considered in any investigations of the Site C option. Does continued public ownership of BC Hydro compromise opportunities for Independent Power Producers (IPPs)? BC Hydro s response was that it does not. Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 5 of 12

6 What is the energy loss on transmission of power generated at the Bennett Dam from northern B.C. to southern B.C.? BC Hydro s response is that there is more loss the further you get from the source, but province-wide there is an average energy loss to transmission of about 11 per cent. Are there comparisons being done between the losses from the DC lines such as they have in Ontario, versus the AC lines we have in B.C.? BC Hydro committed to follow-up to provide an answer. 2. Presentation on Resource Options, Attributes and Value Exercises 2.1 Purposes of mock exercises Rohan provided an overview of the value exercises as follows: to get people thinking about trade-offs involved and what is important to them; to help frame subsequent discussions and better highlight strengths and weaknesses of resource options; to stimulate discussion that will serve as input to help generate ideas for how the resource options should be mixed together to create portfolios for the provincial committee. He noted that the exercises use attributes based on information collected during the 2004 IEP, that the attributes are a work in progress, and that they have all being scaled to produce the equivalent of 1000 GWh of energy. 2.2 Background on BC Hydro s future energy needs Rohan provided an overview of the resource options exercises, beginning with a description of the breakdown in electricity demand between the three customer groups: 1/3 industrial, 1/3 commercial, 1/3 residential. He also noted demand varies throughout the day and seasonally as well as across regions. He then provided definitions of the difference between energy (the annual total used, expressed in GWh) and capacity (the amount of energy that can be provided at a particular moment in time, expressed as MW). He then discussed the monthly energy profile of BC Hydro s load (demand) and generation (supply), and explained that BC Hydro is looking at both demand and supply incentives to help meet variable demand. He went on to outline the supply-demand outlook to 2025 for both energy and capacity and noted the widening gap between current supply and the forecasted increase in demand. 2.3 Resource Options Rohan outlined the various resource options open to BC Hydro going forward as follows: Power Smart: a form of demand-side management; expected to meet one-third of the load growth over its current ten-year cycle. Biomass: wood and other waste as fuel for steam generators. Geothermal: heat from geothermal wells powering steam generators. Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 6 of 12

7 Wind: turbine generators convert power into electricity; considered an up-and-coming energy source. Run-of-river Small Hydro: characterized by size and limited storage capacity; many possibilities exist throughout province, and this resource is expected to account for the majority of IPPs. Large Hydro: large hydroelectric dam with a generator and a reservoir; proxy project used in mock exercises is Site C. Coal: coal-fired steam turbines generate electricity; drawbacks include cost and emissions, but it is a very reliable fuel source. Natural Gas: gas-fired turbines generate electricity; drawbacks include emissions and fossil fuel basis, but also very reliable and portable. Tidal Current/Wave: both emerging technologies with good future potential, but not currently being actively considered. Distributed Generation: smaller scale and located near grid (that is, net metering); not considered a generating technology in and of itself. Resource Smart: upgrades to BC Hydro s existing facilities that result in increased energy or capacity. Customer cogeneration: not a technology in and of itself. Imports: no plans to rely on imports to meet domestic needs; only used when economically beneficial to ratepayers to do so. Pumped storage: water pumped from lower reservoir in off peak hours; re-used to power generators during peak hours. 2.4 Assumptions used in mock exercises Rohan explained that not all resource options identified above would be used in the mock exercises. The reasons were that the exercises needed to have manageable parameters, and many of the resource options do not yet have enough energy potential to be viable or they are already included within other resource options. 2.5 Attributes used in mock exercises Rohan explained that, in order to provide a common reference point for making comparisons, each resource option was bundled to provide a set amount of energy 1000 GWh. The relative impacts of each resource option bundle would be measured by the following attributes: Unit Energy Cost (including adjustments for Dependable Capacity Ratio and for Location) Number of Projects (participants should discuss whether there is consensus on whether more or less projects is better) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) equivalent emissions per year) Local Air Emissions (tonnes of nitrous oxide (NO X ) equivalent emission per year) Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 7 of 12

8 Impacted Area Land and Water Short-Term Jobs Long-Term Jobs 3. Mock Exercises 3.1 Overview of exercises Mary and Rohan began the overview of the exercises and explained the two separate value exercises that would be completed in the exercise: 1. Direct Ranking of Resource Options. 2. Swing Weighting using Attributes. 3.2 Questions and Discussion (arising from resource option presentation) The following comments were made and questions asked during this portion of the day: It was noted that incentives included in the federal budget could change the unit energy cost of various resource options that qualify as renewable. BC Hydro said that none of the resource options used in the current exercise have incentives factored in yet, so they are being compared on an even footing. But there will be some work during the next stage of the process in order to understand exactly the impacts of incentives on relative cost of each of the resource options. Number of projects. Rohan noted that some people consider a greater number of projects a positive factor e.g., for diversity of supply and economic development reasons. Whereas, the attribute was considered a negative when developed mainly because of the incremental development costs associated with increased individual projects. A preliminary decision was made to include it in the exercise, but to reevaluate the decision during the afternoon session. It was noted that there are technologies available to reduce some of the emissions from certain fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. BC Hydro also noted that using those technologies may come with a cost. However, the effects of those technologies have not been included in the values used for the mock exercises. What are the effects of decaying underwater vegetation on greenhouse gas emissions? BC Hydro s response was that there are some emissions, they are not zero, but they are relatively low in relation to fossil fuel emissions. What are the levels of sulfur dioxide being created from the reservoirs? BC Hydro committed to find out the answer and report back. I don t agree with BC Hydro s figures used in the exercises with regards to impacted area. They seem far too low and I don t know if I can trust the integrity of the numbers that are being used to calculate impacts. This opinion was expressed in relation to the land and inundation impacts from a large hydro project such as Site C, but Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 8 of 12

9 also with regards to the footprint from other projects such as wind power projects. It was noted that the relative weight of the footprint from different resource options was not considered in developing the values used for impacted land. 4. Discussion of Results of Mock Exercises 4.1 Review of results of direct ranking exercise Although there was a wide range of rankings among participants, it was not as great as the previous day s workshop. Power Smart and wind were the most favoured. Natural gas, coal and biomass were the least favoured. 4.2 Review of results of swing weighted rankings There was strong agreement that flooded land and impacted land are two of the most important attributes, although greenhouse gases and local emissions were also seen as important by a majority of participants. It was also fairly consistently seen that jobs were the least important attributes, although cost and number of projects were also considered low in importance by a majority of participants. There was a clear split between the four most important attributes and the four least important. 4.3 Combined rankings Generally it appeared that Power Smart, small hydro and geothermal would best serve people s needs based on the combination of direct and swing ranking. Coal, large hydro, natural gas and biomass were generally ranked at the bottom. As with previous workshops, wind was one of the favoured options by a majority of people in their direct rankings, but would appear to serve their needs the least based on the conflict between people s desire to limit land impacts and the land impacts that wind energy has. 4.4 Consistency test A Consistency Test was conducted. It measured what people said about their preferences through direct ranking versus what the ranking should be based on what they said drives their decision-making. There was a fair amount of divergence from people s direct rankings when swing weighting results were taken into account. This led to a large amount of discussion about the value of the information used in the exercises. 4.5 Questions and Discussion (arising from exercises) Participants put forth a number of questions, comments and recommendations during and after the review of the exercise results: The constraints of the exercise made it difficult at times to weight the different resource options. If variable factors such as new technologies to reduce emissions, or an allowance for full cost accounting of impacts could be factored into the value exercise, it would likely change the relative weighting of a number of the resource options. Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 9 of 12

10 The quality and quantity of information is not sufficient enough to make good decisions. I don t think there is enough information. I need more than numbers to evaluate the relative importance of the options. Jobs are not as important as economic development. Jobs are only one part of the larger picture of economic development, and perhaps economic development would be a better attribute to use for measuring purposes. Another comment was the interest in factoring in the contribution of resource options to community self-sufficiency. Nuclear energy needs to be investigated for comparison s sake. There needs to be more full cost accounting involved in developing the consequence table. For example, natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but is dirty to produce, and the costs (economic and environmental) of producing it need to be factored in. Research and development should be focusing on new, renewable technologies. Fossil fuels will eventually be exhausted, so BC Hydro should be putting the majority of resources into developing alternative technologies that have a longer term value. Wind and solar power, while initially expensive to develop, will be the most cost-efficient power sources over the long term. It should be BC Hydro s first mandate to be environmentally responsible. It may cost us more in the long run, but it appears that BC Hydro is currently allowing itself to be run primarily by economics. BC Hydro needs to investigate clean coal. If the ability to reduce the environmental impact from coal was factored in, and we could see how clean it can be, it might be a more favoured option 1. I support coal and biomass as resource options, because I believe the technology is available to make clean energy. The resource to supply biomass is readily available and will be burned anyway. And coal can be developed throughout the province, so it could be an option with the shortest distance to the load centre, and therefore could help decrease transmission costs and energy loss from transmission. The figures used to measure land impacts inaccurately measure the severity of those impacts. The weight of the footprint and the value of the land impact needs to be considered. Reliability of supply should be factored into the attribute list somehow. The provincial government needs to look at the bigger picture around costs to the taxpayers. For instance, the amount of money paid to dispose municipal solid waste in the Peace River Regional District is greater than that paid for power. So there should be research done on how to use waste to produce energy (that is, through biomass and/or cogeneration) and thereby possibly reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer. 1 (Post meeting comment upon participant s review of meeting notes) Katrina Keuth felt the notes had not captured her discussion regarding clean coal and wind power. Clean coal (from her experience working for Rheinbraun in Germany) is feasible as the technology already exists. She also had concerns regarding wind power, not only for wildlife but for the health of people who may be living near the source she saw this as a problem similar to the effects of transmission lines based near populated areas. Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 10 of 12

11 All attributes need to be more clearly defined. There is a need to look at options regionally. In other words, what are the upstream and downstream benefits and costs from any given resource option? There needs to be an opportunity for local benefits. It was unanimously agreed by the group that power should be generated closest to the load it will supply. Resource options should be developed where they are used when they are available. So if it is possible to develop coal or small hydro or biomass options near the load centre (i.e., southern B.C.), then those options should be pursued before developing resources in the north to be shipped south. In other words, those who stand to benefit should also be the ones to assume some of the risks and impacts. There should be an attribute that factors in quality of life values. It was recommended that energy trade be considered only in the context of keeping rates low, and that BC Hydro should not invest in new infrastructure solely for trade. Use only surplus capacity from already existing infrastructure. There are 27,459 acres directly affected by Site C proposal, according to Larry Peterson, who disputes the figures used by BC Hydro. BC Hydro committed to follow up with Larry before the fall workshop sessions. 4.6 Portfolio development Mary posed the following question to participants: are there other resource options that the provincial committee should be looking at when developing the first round of portfolios? Answers are as follows: nuclear power Power Smart (building standards, incentives) biomass agricultural waste location near commercial technologies incentives for alternative technology research and development reevaluate BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) terms of reference residential and commercial demand-side management consider agricultural rate designs 5. BC Hydro s Long-Term Planning Goals Rohan reiterated BC Hydro s goal of providing reliable power at low cost for generations and noted that the goal will be fulfilled through fifteen long term goals under six categories over twenty years. Four of the goals directly influencing the IEP, including: 1. Customer reliability of supply, including: electricity self-sufficiency for domestic needs; importing only on an opportunistic basis when it is economical to do so without ever becoming reliant on foreign markets for domestic energy needs. 2. Environment: no net incremental environmental impact; foster a conservation culture resulting in a reduction in electricity intensity. Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 11 of 12

12 3. Financial: maintain low cost position in North America. 4. Enable Western Opportunities: to continue to leverage trade opportunities so that the benefits of trade flow back to the ratepayers of B.C. There are also social goals supporting the IEP: First Nations: improve relationships built upon mutual respect that appropriately reflect the interests of First Nations. Stakeholder engagement: to be the most respected company in B.C. 6. Next Steps Mary outlined the next steps in the IEP process, including posting meeting notes, presentation materials from workshops, and progress of the PIEPC on the web site. She asked participants to provide contact information if they are interested in attending the second round of workshops in the early fall. She then reminded people that they can fill out evaluation forms or provide feedback through other means such as , fax and phone. 7. Action Items The following people would like to be notified about the fall 2005 IEP Regional Workshops: Ross Peck Ken Hall Wally Gentles Katrina Keuth Village of Pouce Coupe Contact Details Website: Phone: BC Hydro Meeting held March 3, 2005 at the Super 8 Motel in Fort St. John Page 12 of 12