Columbia River Treaty Review: Iteration #2 Results, and Next Steps

Transcription

1 Columbia River Treaty Review: Status, General Summary of Iteration #2 Results, and Next Steps Rick Pendergrass Bonneville Power Administration PNUCC May 3, 2013 Slide 1

2 Current Activities Sovereign Review Team Activities Completing Review of Iteration 2 results Discussing perspectives of the Columbia River Treaty post 2024 Developing guidance for STT on Iteration 3 modeling Sovereign Technical Team Activities iti Working with SRT to design and formulate Iteration 3 scenarios *Reservoir elevations, flows, generation, spill Slide 2

3 U.S. Entity Activities Continuing to work with SRT and STT. Maintaining communications and coordination with Department of State. Coordination and workshops with the Mid-Columbia utilities and Power Group. Engaging regional stakeholders through 14 open houses across the region. Comment and input tends to be very local Developing Perspectives of the US Entity for the Columbia River Treaty Post 2024 Examples include: Revisit the amount of downstream power benefits shared with Canada. Post 2024 CRT flood risk management must provide a similar level of downstream risk as pre A reasonable expansion of Treaty purposes to include US and Canadian ecosystem benefits. Slide 3

4 Iteration 2 Alternatives Alternatives: A system of operational, structural and/or non-structural measures formulated to meet the identified study objectives subject to study constraints. 1. Current Condition (RC-CC) CC) 2. Treaty Continues with flood risk mitigation objectives that are fairly close to current flood risk (2A-TC) 3. Treaty Terminates with flood risk mitigation that are fairly close to current flood risk (2A-TT) 4. Treaty Continues with slightly relaxed flood risk mitigation objectives (2B-TC) Slide 4

5 Iteration 2 Components - Not stand-alone alternatives to be implemented; rather, bookends meant to understand operation of the system for a single purpose 1. E1 Natural Hydrograph Store and release water from U.S. and Canadian reservoirs to meet a natural flow based on the type of water year, no system flood control, no operation specifically for power 2. E2 Reservoirs as Natural Lakes Generally hold reserves full and pass inflows through, no system flood control, no operation specifically for power 3. E3 Summer Flows Store water in Canadian projects during the fall and release to augment summer flows in U.S. (Additional 2.5 Maf added to Mica) 4. E4 [reconnect flood plains] (focuses on potential levee removal for purpose of ecosystem benefits) 5. E5 Dry Year Strategy Store water in Canadian projects during the winter/early spring to augment spring flows in lowest 20% of water years (Additional 2.5 Maf added d to Mica) Slide 5

6 Iteration ti 2 Components 6. H1 Optimize Canadian and U.S. hydropower systems Optimized i the Canadian and US U.S. hydropower systems using current system projects 7. H2 Optimize the Canadian and U.S. power system with the BiOp operations included d Including fish operations, optimize the Canadian and U.S. hydropower system using current system projects 8. F1 Full Use of Authorized Storage Maximize use of authorized U.S. storage (full draft as needed) 9. F2 No Called Upon Flood Storage No use of Canadian storage for U.S. flood risk management 10. F3 Modify U.S. Levees to perform to Authorized Level Evaluate the ability to reduce U.S. flood risk if all levees in U.S. perform to authorized levell Slide 6

7 Hydropower Slide 7

8 US System - Generation (amw) Adjusted for CEA with 442 amw Subtracted from TC Alternatives October November December January February March April I April II May June July August I August II September Annual All Water Years 2RC-CC A-TC A-TT B-TC Slide 8

9 E components have large impact on total generation Note change in scale compared to alternatives US System - Generation (amw) Adjusted for CEA with 442 amw Subtracted from TC Components October November December January February March April I April II May June July August I August II September Annual All Water Years 2RC-CC E E E E Slide 9

10 Total Power Revenue Impacts Compared to Reference Case Canada U.S. Total 2A-TC +$ 1 M -$ 3 M -$ 2 Million 2B-TC +$ 2 M -$ 16 M -$ 14 Million 2A-TT - $100 M +$ 170 M +$ 70 Million E1 -$ 200 M -$ 1,200 M -$ 1,400 Million E2 -$ 120 M -$ 690 M -$ 810 Million E3 -$ 1 M -$ 27 M -$ 28 Million E5 -$ 4 M -$ 33 M -$ 37 Million 70-year annual averages, including consideration of the Canadian Entitlement, but not including Canadian Capacity effects Slide 10

11 2025 Value of Canadian Entitlement if Treaty Continues Under Existing Methodology 450 amw, with about 1,300 MW capacity Worth roughly $ million per year (including capacity) Canada can specify delivery on highest value hours each month (with day-ahead scheduling) U.S. has to keep equivalent of 1,300 MW generation plant available for Canada and reserve 1,300 MW of transmission capacity This formula calculates value of DPB and CE based on 1961 system, with and without existence of Canadian Treaty dams Slide 11

12 US Entity Perspective of DPB Post 2024 Canadian investment in the Treaty dams is fully compensated by The value of coordination to the U.S. is the benefit of an agreed Assured Operating Plan for Treaty storage as compared to a non-coordinated Canadian only operation. The post-2024 Canadian Entitlement payment should reflect ½ of the actual U.S. benefit received from Treaty coordination. The estimated value of continued coordination benefit to the US is in the range of $50 million to $60 million, which would result in a Canadian Entitlement value of $25 to $30 million. U.S. must still estimate the value of other power benefits of Treaty coordination such as certainty of operations, the firm energy value, and the seasonal value of energy. Mid Columbia utilities have expressed concern over the high h level l of Canadian Entitlement t under the existing Treaty formula. Other PNW power interests have expressed similar concerns. The agreement that provides for the return of CE over existing transmission lines ends in The Treaty requires the build of transmission i to Oliver, BC, unless otherwise agreed. Canadian and U.S. perspectives may differ on where the appropriate starting point for the discussion on the value of CE post Slide 12

13 Where are we now? 2011 June 2012 June-July April 2013 April-May Iteration 1 of Analysis Completed Iteration 2 of Analysis Completed Studies Sovereigns Public Meetings Public Meetings Stakeholders We are here Slide 13

14 Modeling and Analysis: Iteration 3 1. Further assess what we learned in Iterations 1 and 2 2. Consider all the input and comments made by sovereigns and stakeholders 3. Model and analyze: 2-3 additional future Treaty scenarios 4 additional Treaty Terminates Canadian operations scenarios 2 climate change scenarios into select alternatives ti 4. Assess benefits and impacts Slide 14

15 Where do we go from here? 2013 April-May May-Aug September December Public Meetings We are here Iteration 3 of Analysis Completed Draft Regional Recommendation Shared with the Public Regional Recommendation Submitted to U.S. State Department Slide 15