BC Hydro 2005 Integrated Electricity Plan (IEP) Castlegar Regional Workshop Final Meeting Notes

Transcription

1 Workshop Date and Location March 4, 2005 Sandman Hotel Inns and Suites 1944 Columbia Ave., Castlegar, B.C. Attendees Name Fred Marsh Elroy Switlishoff Gordon De Rosa Corine Gain Sean Murphy Dan Egolf Chris D Arcy Interests/Organization Electrical Consumers Association, Castlegar Independent Consultant, Castlegar Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, Trail Regional District of Central Kootenay, Nelson Glacier Power BC, Nelson FortisBC, Trail Castlegar Rotary, Castlegar S. W. Webster West Kootenay Naturalists Association, Castlegar Russ Leslie Mike O Connor Griff Welsh Dieter Boggs Neil Murphy Bill Duncan Blair Suffredine Gord Turner Gary Birch Nelson Power/City of Nelson, Nelson City of Castlegar, Castlegar Public, Montrose City of Trail, Trail BC Hydro/IEP Representatives Name Kristann Boudreau Samantha Petticrew Sue Heaton Allan Woo Margaret Birch Glacier Power BC, Maple Ridge Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., Trail Nelson-Creston MLA, Nelson Castlegar Rotary, Castlegar Observer, BC Hydro, Castlegar Responsibility/Organization Session Facilitator, BC Hydro, Vancouver Technical Resource, BC Hydro, Vancouver Session Host/Facilitator, Community Relations, BC Hydro, Castlegar Technical Support Columbia River Issues, BC Hydro, Vancouver Note Taker 1. Introduction/Workshop Objectives Sue Heaton welcomed the participants to the workshop and thanked them for attending. She introduced the Integrated Electricity Plan (IEP) team representatives. Participant introductions followed. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 1 of 9

2 1.1 Update 2004 IEP/Overview 2005 IEP Kristann Boudreau presented an overview of BC Hydro s IEP process. The main topics were an update on the 2004 IEP process and an overview of the 2005 IEP process. 1.2 Questions and Answers Why are you engaging First Nations separately about the IEP? BC Hydro responded that First Nations requested a parallel series of workshops so that if there were specific additional questions and concerns they could be addressed. First Nations representatives were also invited to join in these sessions. Note: Twenty regional workshops like this one are being held around the province. The feedback received during these workshops, and during the First Nations workshops; will be presented to a Provincial IEP Committee (PIEPC). When will the Resource Options report be available and will we have a chance to provide input? BC Hydro said the report will be completed in spring The previous Resource Options Report is publicly available, and the 2005 report will be as well. To gather input, a series of Resource Option Technical Workshops are underway; the next workshop will be held in March or April For more information, see BC Hydro s website Has there been any discussion about what BC Hydro s power requirements are? BC Hydro responded that it is based on demand and supply. This workshop focuses less on how we determined the size of the gap between projected demand and supply, and focuses more on how that gap can be filled (i.e., with what new sources of electricity). A participant commented that BC Hydro is a critical supplier of energy to the Kootenay region; and indicated interest in the demand outlook for the area. How are the current power purchase agreements being factored into this situation? Samantha Petticrew (Technical Resource) inquired on this matter and advised that all firm commitments (such as BC Hydro s contract with FortisBC) are accounted for in the 20-year outlook. Is there a gap between production and consumption? Are you responsible for ensuring a supply of power to the other areas that do not use BC Hydro power directly? BC Hydro responded that FortisBC is obligated to project their demand needs for this region, and seek supply to meet the demand. BC Hydro is obligated to fulfill the terms of its contract to supply FortisBC with electricity, but does not directly supply FortisBC s customers in this region with power FortisBC is responsible for that. Is BC Hydro contemplating the current relationship with other power buyers for the future? What is BC Hydro assuming about its agreement with FortisBC moving forward, based on the current agreement in place? BC Hydro responded that currently BC Hydro supplies 200 megawatts (MW) annually to FortisBC. BC Hydro is a critical supplier to this region, as is the Columbia Power Corporation, who generates power from their Brilliant Dam. FortisBC gets about half its power needs from BC Hydro, with the other half from their own plants. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 2 of 9

3 A participant asked for a response to a letter he received from another citizen. Why is BC Hydro s Power Smart giving millions of dollars to the Canfor and Weyerhaeuser corporations to burn waste? It seems unreasonable that money is going to corporations when they should be doing this initiative on their own? BC Hydro responded that Power Smart s main goal has been to increase conservation and efficiency. BC Hydro has largely focused on incentivetype programs. The BC Hydro team committed to getting back to the participant with a more specific answer to his question. Sliding electricity scale rates. A participant commented that It would be good to create a sliding scale for electricity rates, so the more you use, the more you pay! Some customers make the effort to be energy efficient while others frivolously use vast amounts of power to heat their hot tubs. Is it true that BC Hydro cannot provide the rate of consumption used by customers to the RCMP due to current privacy laws (for example, properties where there might be a marijuana grow operation)? BC Hydro responded that this is true. However, a new technology is being developed where a meter can be tested for the heat level coming from meters, which could indicate diverted power. Action: Sue Heaton will send available information to Dieter Boggs about this when it becomes available. Nelson Hydro privacy considerations. A participant indicated that Nelson Hydro cannot provide information about its customers electricity use. A discussion followed about abusers of power. Grow operations and excessive power users need to be addressed. Existing privacy laws make it frustrating. Kristann concluded the IEP presentation with a summary of the feedback received during the previous night s Public Information Session. Refer to the Castlegar March 3 rd Info Session meeting notes for details. 2. Review Resource Options and Attributes Kristann presented an overview of Resource Options, including energy, capacity and customer demand, and 2005 IEP Resource Types. She also outlined the resource options under consideration in the 2005 IEP (e.g., biomass, wind, small hydro, large hydro, natural gas-fired generation) as well as the attributes used to describe them (e.g., cost, air emissions, area of land impacted by development and jobs created). All of this information about resource options and attributes was summarized in a consequence table that was distributed. This information was used by the group of participants to complete a series of Mock Exercises. 2.1 Questions and Answers What is small versus large hydro? BC Hydro responded that small hydro is up to 50 megawatts (MW) per project site, and large hydro is greater than 50 megawatts. BC Hydro is currently seeking bids for projects that could provide the next 1,000 gigawatt hours of power required to keep up with growing demand in the province. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 3 of 9

4 Are there any actual examples of net metering customers? BC Hydro responded that there are a few that can produce as much as 70,000 kilowatt hours. Can meters go backwards? Yes, BC Hydro responded some residences that can generate power from alternate means (i.e., solar panels) can shift their excess power back out into the grid. 2.2 Questions and Discussion Participants made the following comments: Transmission: consider DC for new lines or DC Light, which is an emerging technology. These options would avoid the losses and health impacts of AC. Large hydro: consider the potential to develop the Homathko River, also Site C is already a working river, but there is concern about the development prospects of other projects. Natural gas: this option is wasted when it comes to generating electricity (some of which is used for heating) it would be better to save remaining natural gas reserves for other uses since it is a finite resource. District (waste) energy: could be supplied in communities in partnership with industry. Referring to the Pre-Reading Package for Regional Workshops, page 6, Section 2, paragraph 3 talks about the transmission line being managed by the British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC) on behalf of BC Hydro. Does that crown corporation (BCTC) not answer to the government as opposed to BC Hydro? Allan Woo (Technical Resource) confirmed that BCTC is a separate provincial Crown corporation independent of BC Hydro. However, BC Hydro continues to own the core transmission assets. BCTC is responsible to manage, maintain, and operate BC Hydro s transmission assets as an independent system operator to ensure open and non-discriminatory access to the B.C. transmission system. Both BCTC and BC Hydro report to the government. Note: If the pre-reading material is to be used as background information in the future, the division of BC Hydro and BCTC should be clarified so it can be better understood by the public. Why would we not use a variety of resource options to keep the electrical costs down, by working within the best level of cost option potential for each type, to the level that it is cost effective? Samantha advised that such an approach would be considered at the portfolio level. Is the government not striving for 10% green power? Samantha advised that BC Hydro s voluntary goal is to supply 50% of new power from clean sources. A participant commented that BC Hydro should define what is meant by green power for the public. Note: Concerning certification of B.C. Clean power, the provincial government policy states a commitment to providing 50% power from BC Clean sources. There is currently no certification process in place for companies to demonstrate that they are B.C. Clean. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 4 of 9

5 BC Hydro Green Energy Criteria. A Glacier Power representative advised that there is an application process and criteria in place for getting certified to qualify under BC Hydro s green energy criteria. Kristann advised that this is a matter of importance for the PIEPC and would be a point to bring to their attention. Do the adjusted unit energy cost numbers presented in the consequence table for each resource option reflect the possible synergies between the options? Although the wind option has a lower dependable capacity, it could be combined with other options that have higher dependable capacity. BC Hydro responded that each resource option is viewed as a stand-alone; however, this context will be examined by the PIEPC when they look at creating portfolios where different resource options are being combined. 2.3 Suggested Planning Considerations for the PIEPC Participants raised the following considerations: Ensure enough green and/or clean power to meet commitments (see definitions in the pre-reading package). Impact on tax revenue for each of the resource options normalizing tax revenue from private initiative versus a public initiative. Fisheries impacts of small hydro different with siting (e.g., depending on whether they are located near natural water falls). Small hydro offers an ease in cost to decommission. Impacts on communities and property/impact on local and regional land and community planning issues and objectives. Break out of different cost factors. Visual pollution- an aesthetic impact. Global warming and greenhouse gases(ghgs): - now fighting against accumulative effect - need to adjust programs to compensate for global warming which has not increased costs yet, but will do so in future years - vulnerability to effects of global warming and impacts on costs of environmental mitigation and compensation How renewable is the source? For example, since natural gas will run out, it is not as renewable as some of the other resource options. Cost curves: recognize that the costs presented in the consequence table will rise when the amount of power being looked at gets beyond 1,000 GWh. Load shape (seasonal availability) or renewable sources (e.g., small hydro) Consider taxation of resource options. The PIEPC will need to consider taxation of these projects as each has varying impacts on tax revenue for communities. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 5 of 9

6 3. Value Exercises: Direct Ranking and Swing Weighting Kristann explained how the Direct Ranking and Swing Weighting exercises would be completed. Following completion of both exercises, the Facilitator entered all the information provided by participants, and presented an analysis of the results back to the group. 3.1 Direct Ranking Exercise (completed by 12 participants) General highlights of the results from participants were presented and discussed as a group. From a direct ranking perspective, the top group preferences were: Power Smart, small hydro and, to a lesser degree, wind and large hydro. Specific results for each participants were summarized by Kristann. Various comments were provided by participants as each analysis was discussed: Address environmental concerns (air emissions) and don t use coal. Mega-projects like Site C are simply not going to happen in the future. Not convinced about natural gas and coal (i.e., that we can adequately deal with the air emissions). Natural resources like natural gas and coal are being depleted. Strong support for Power Smart, small hydro, large hydro and wind, would like to push the opportunity for some low cost wind power. Not convinced about wind power. Coal is does not provide a reliable source of electricity, though large quantities still available. Don t waste use of natural gas for power: use it for other purposes. Top preference is large hydro as it is renewable. Small hydro is reasonable and manageable in this region along with Power Smart and geothermal. Power Smart is an obvious choice. Small hydro has benefits that could be expanded upon. Biomass and wind are good ideas, but just not enough to save the world. Large hydro stays at middle of the road. Big northern projects are long range and there are First Nations issues related to Site C, but this may change in the future. Uncertainty about costs and limited supply of natural gas power production. Power Smart is a good option but it s a very small percentage of what is needed for addressing future years. Favour wind and small hydro: choices need to be non-polluting with limited emissions. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 6 of 9

7 Large hydro, small hydro and Power Smart top choices. If we start to compare dollar for dollar in future years, large hydro pays off despite the very great upfront construction costs. Roads constructed to create access to new power developments (e.g., small hydro) open up access for other interests after initially opened for forestry. Communities have now developed in areas where roads were built but not for their purpose of residence. Pressures now exist to get road condition improvements, which were not the original intent. Need to recognize the impact of new development on local and regional planning (expectations get created where none existed before). What is not valued when it comes to small hydro projects is the delivery timing the winter when FortisBC does not need it. In some cases they may have no demand and are spilling during winter periods. Coal has some problems but there is potential if properly addressed (i.e., with pollution control technology). It will benefit supply of power but will not save the world. Where large hydro is available, take advantage of the opportunities greatest ability for supply and reasonable costs. 3.2 Swing Weighting Exercise (completed by 11 participants) General highlights of the results from participants were presented and discussed as a group. From a swing weighting perspective, the top group preferences were: Power Smart, small hydro, large hydro and geothermal. Kristann summarized the specific results for each of the group participants. Various comments were provided by participants as each analysis was discussed: Cost is most important followed by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, local emissions, and land impacts - dams have permanent impacts. Cost and the environmental impacts on land and water are important, then permanent jobs. Costs, emissions and permanent jobs are near-top priorities. Preference for ensuring permanent and temporary jobs. Low air emissions top issue followed by GHG emissions. Cost is a definite issue which emphasizes the importance for Power Smart and small hydro. Large hydro projects are favoured, but the specific location is a big factor in determining support. 3.3 Other Resource Options to Consider Participants listed the following: Methyl hydrate gases (e.g, in the Arctic). Can we not mine it by injecting steam to release the gas that can be burned for energy? Growing agricultural crops of renewable fuels (for example, ethanol, bio-diesel). Agricultural waste and manure burned in coke oven. Burning landfill waste. Burn methane from landfills, or compost, or sewage sludge. Steam heat from Teck Cominco Metals in Trail has helped to keep Trail s downtown sidewalks warm. Using waste heat has helped to reduce energy costs for the local Trail region. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 7 of 9

8 Currently Teck Cominco benefits by cheapest power available and as such is not inclined to seek out further energy efficiency opportunities. Bigger benefits do exist if the current untapped energy was applied for future efficiency. This is an example where it would be important to consider the greater societal benefits even if straight economics are not profitable enough for a particular enterprise. 3.4 Questions regarding the Columbia River Treaty Participants raised the following questions: Has BC Hydro established a task force for re-negotiating the Columbia River Treaty with the United States? Allan Woo advised that the Columbia River Treaty does not expire until 2024 and only if either of the parties deliver at least ten years written notice. Therefore, sometime by 2014 some action will need to be taken if there is interest to initiate negotiation. Has the provincial government given BC Hydro any direction regarding the renewal of the Treaty? Allan advised that it would be the provincial and federal governments and not BC Hydro being tasked to address the matter. No process has currently been laid out as of yet. Allan confirmed that BC Hydro is responsible for the delivery of the Columbia River Treaty obligations through the operation of the Treaty storage projects. In return, one-half of the power benefits generated in the United States are returned to B.C. and is owned by the province, not BC Hydro. What about non-treaty storage? Allan advised that the negotiating work is ongoing but currently very slow. More effort will be needed in the future. 4. Presentation on BCUC Regulatory Requirements Kristann provided additional information on BC Hydro s Regulatory Requirements, which involves filing a Resource Expenditure and Acquisition Plan (REAP) every two years to the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC). Further details were presented on Scope and Responsibility, the Commission Act and BCUC Resource Planning Guidelines, and the Resource Options Report (ROR). 5. Summary and Next Steps Kristann summarized the workshop by presenting the flow of the IEP process which relates to the regional information and workshop sessions with other Resource Options Technical Workshops, Regional Information Sessions and Workshops (like this one), First Nations Regional Sessions, and the PIEPC process. Kristann concluded the session by giving the website address for the 2005 IEP. Information available at the site includes the meeting notes for this and other regional sessions which will be posted in the next few weeks. A contact phone number and an address were provided as well. Kristann offered funding forms for any participants if needed, participant results for each of the mock exercises by ; and whether any of the group participants might have an interest in participating in a future fall regional session. A few participants indicated they would be interested depending on the timing of the session and their availability. Feedback forms were distributed and gathered. Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 8 of 9

9 6. Action Item Sue Heaton will send available information to Dieter Boggs, when it becomes available, about BC Hydro s new technology on meter testing (in regards to detecting grow-ops). Contact Details Website: Phone: BC Hydro IEP.2005@bchydro.com Meeting held March 4, 2005 at the Sandman Hotel in Castlegar Page 9 of 9