Integrated Electricity Plan (IEP) 2005 Technical Resource Option Workshop #2 Environmental Attributes March 9, 2005 a.m. Final Meeting Notes

Transcription

1 ATTENDEES (in alphabetical order by organization of person) Name Paul Kan Dale Littlejohn Ron Sanderson Rama Vinnakota Stephen Cheeseman David Andrews Nick Andrews John Johnson Dave Newlands Keith Ainsley Sam Mottram Roger McLaughlin Dennis Fitzgerald John Rivers Graham Horn Kevin Gilchrist Bill Harland Stuart Croft Arne Elias Kirthi Roberts Roy Paris Ken Ross Mark Hartman Matt Horne Ron Macdonald Jim Weimer David Humber Craig Aspinall Frank Baumann Organization B.C. Small Business and Economic Development B.C. Sustainable Energy Association BCTC BCTC Chinook Power Corp. Cloudworks Energy Inc. Cloudworks Energy Inc. Cloudworks Energy Inc. Elk Valley Coal Corporation Knight-Piesold Consulting Knight-Piesold Consulting Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources Norske Canada Northwest Energy Services Planit Management Pristine Power SeaBreeze Power Corp. Summit Power Group Sustainable Research Development Initiative Sustainable Research Development Initiative Synchro Power Terasen Gas Inc. Terasen Gas Inc. The Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development The Sheltair Group Weimer Consulting Inc. West Fraser Mills Western GeoPower Western GeoPower Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 1 of 11

2 BC HYDRO PROJECT TEAM (in alphabetical order by first name) Mar. 9 a.m. Name Organization & Department Role on the IEP Project Team Adam Lewis Ecofish Consulting IEP Technical Advisor Basil Stumborg BC Hydro, Stakeholder Engagement Brandee Clayton BC Hydro, IEP Project Management Office Facilitator & Decision Analyst for Provincial IEP Committee IEP Logistics Coordinator Glen Singleton BC Hydro, Engineering IEP Technical Advisor John Rich BC Hydro, Power Planning and Portfolio Management IEP Project Advisor Kristin Hanlon BC Hydro, Energy Planning IEP Task Manager Tim Lesiuk BC Hydro, Corporate Sustainability MEETING OBJECTIVES IEP Technical Advisor The objectives of the Technical Resource Options Workshop on Environmental Attributes are: To establish common a understanding of the thought process for developing environmental attributes, that is, creating decision criteria. To present a summary of the discussion and preliminary direction from the Provincial IEP Committee. To solicit the attendees input and work on outstanding issues associated with environmental attributes. AGENDA Wednesday, March 9 th Environmental Attributes Time Item Presenter 8:30 8:45 Welcome & Session Objectives John Rich 8:45 9:15 Creating decision criteria from environmental Adam Lewis impacts (Water) 9:15 9:45 Creating decision criteria from environmental Glen Singleton impacts (Land) 9:45 10:15 Creating decision criteria from environmental Tim Lesiuk impacts (Air) 10:15 10:30 Break 10:30 10:40 Summary of Provincial IEP Committee Meeting 2 Basil Stumborg 10:40 11:30 Group Discussion Basil Stumborg 11:30 12:00 Wrap Up Basil Stumborg 12:00pm Lunch, End of Session Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 2 of 11

3 PRE-MEETING READING MATERIALS The following materials pertain to the discussion at the Technical Resource Options Workshop on Environmental Attributes and were distributed in electronic format before the meeting. All of these materials will be available on the BC Hydro website at: Item Information Sheet #7 Measuring Environmental Impacts Water Information Sheet #8 Measuring Environmental Impacts Land Information Sheet #9 Measuring Environmental Impacts Air Information Sheet #10 Clean/Green Definitions Description A suggested treatment for tracking impacts of portfolios on water. A suggested treatment for tracking impacts of portfolios on land. A suggested treatment for tracking impacts of portfolios on air. A clarification of these definitions. PRESENTATIONS DELIVERED AT THE MEETING The following presentations were delivered during the meeting. All of these materials will be made available on the BC Hydro website at: Item Welcome and Session Objectives Creating Decision Criteria from Environmental Impacts (Water) Creating Decision Criteria from Environmental Impacts (Land) Creating Decision Criteria from Environmental Impacts (Air) Summary of PIEPC Meeting 2 Description John Rich delivered a Power Point presentation providing a high level overview of the session objectives and summary of discussion of environmental attributes at other IEP stakeholder engagement sessions. Adam Lewis delivered a Power Point presentation that presented some of the challenges associated with measuring environmental impacts as well as summarizing the discussion from the second PIEPC meeting. Glen Singleton delivered a Power Point presentation that discussed the main land and land use impacts and some issues associated with developing measures for land impacts. Tim Lesiuk delivered a Power Point presentation that presented some of the challenges associated with measuring environmental impacts as well as presenting the outcomes from the discussion at the second PIEPC meeting. Basil Stumborg delivered a Power Point presentation that presented a high level summary of the IEP process and objectives and the outcome of the discussion from the second PIEPC meeting on environmental attributes. AGENDA ITEM #1 Welcome and Session Objectives John Rich presented a brief description of the 2005 IEP stakeholder engagement process, as well as feedback received to date on the environmental input data from the 2004 IEP. He then listed some technical and policy challenges associated with establishing decision criteria on environmental attributes. In general, the technical challenge is to find the right planning level balance between environmental attributes that are measurable, but may not reflect the Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 3 of 11

4 impacts of concern, and environmental attributes that more accurately reflect impacts but are too project-specific and not easily measured. A hard copy of John s presentation was distributed at the session. AGENDA ITEM #2 Creating Decision Criteria from Environmental Impacts (Water) Adam Lewis presented a summary of the environmental impacts to aquatic resources from resource options identified. The presentation focussed on impacts from large and small hydro projects, with the acknowledgement that any resource option with associated infrastructure such as roads and transmission lines crossing watersheds will have impacts on aquatic resources. Adam then presented an overview of the regulatory environment and highlighted particular aspects of regulation that required hydro projects to fully mitigate or compensate for any environmental impact. He discussed measuring environmental impacts in terms of direct ( ideal ) and indirect ( practical ) measures and the associated benefits and challenges. He left the audience with the question of how to deal with data gap issues with creating measures: accuracy of database, reliability of extrapolations and comparability of small and large hydro extrapolations. Questions & Discussion The points of clarification and discussion that took place following Adam s presentation were: Decision-making process at PIEPC is it consensus-based? This question was deferred to Basil Stumborg s presentation on the summary of the discussion on environmental attributes at the second PIEPC meeting. Decision criteria versus B.C. Clean Energy and EcoLogo. In response to a question about why BC Hydro was developing new decision criteria on environmental impacts, instead of setting the criteria at meeting B.C. Clean Energy or EcoLogo guidelines; Adam responded that such measures do not address the issue of risk in assessment, as there can be variances and errors in approval. Also, using B.C. Clean Energy and EcoLogo as criteria does not help to distinguish between projects who do not meet these criteria. Proxy measures and impacts to bull trout. A participant commented that the suggested measure of high gradient streams (as a proxy for habitat quality) may disregard impacts to bull trout populations. Impacts of flow reduction to downstream invertebrate populations. In response to a question about what information was available on the impact on flow reduction on invertebrates downstream; Adam responded that a number of studies have been done in recent years on invertebrates in fishless streams. Fishless streams can make an important contribution to fish habitat downstream, therefore small hydro projects on fishless streams can affect fish habitat. However, most invertebrates are more resistant to changes in flow regimes than are fish. A literature review of the effects of flow withdrawal on fishless streams is provided in a study by the Province available on the internet. Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 4 of 11

5 See Instream Flow Thresholds Development available at: AGENDA ITEM #3 Creating Decision Criteria from Environmental Impacts (Land) Glen Singleton started his presentation by detailing the important land impacts and land use impacts and some of the relevant regulations that protect / govern over those impacts. Glen asked attendees to think about how to develop a measure that would distinguish between two diverse resource options, wind and geothermal, on land impacts alone. Glen then shared two measures proposed during the IEP stakeholder sessions to evaluate land impacts: the first being land impacted, but not lost to footprint; and the second being land irreversibly lost to footprint. Glen also discussed ways to consider the quality or ecological significance ( setting ) of the land impacted and fit with land uses ( operations compatibility ), such as using a matrix with a qualitative numerical scoring system. Questions & Discussion The following points of clarification and discussion took place after Glen s presentation: Geothermal land impact numbers. In response to a question about how the figures for the land impact measure for geothermal projects were derived; Glen responded that the original numbers came from the 2004 IEP, which were based on permitted area, but are being revised based on discussions with the geothermal IPP industry. A participant commented that using permitted area as a measure for land impacts for geothermal projects would be analogous to using the area of the entire watershed affected for large hydro. Challenges associated with creating measures for quality of land and fit with land uses. IN response to a question about how BC Hydro would propose to create measures to address quality of land and fit with land uses; Glen indicated that using area of land impacted might be appropriate for portfolio analysis but further decisions need to be informed by a more detailed assessment of these impacts on a project by project basis. Natural gas land impact numbers. A participant commented that natural gas land impact numbers should include the impacts upstream of producing natural gas. In particular, studies from northeast B.C. show significant losses to grizzly habitat due to upstream impacts of producing natural gas. Another participant suggested that impacts should be limited to primary impacts, with consideration to quality of land impacted and fit with other activities. The group agreed to defer this debate until the group discussion later on the agenda. AGENDA ITEM #4 Creating Decision Criteria from Environmental Impacts (Air) Tim Lesiuk began his presentation by showing a list of air emissions of interest and highlighting those that were considered in the 2004 IEP. Tim then suggested that upstream or Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 5 of 11

6 downstream ( life cycle ) air impacts come into consideration with the different resource options, but mentioned that the PIEPC favours considering site or facility specific impacts in the 2005 IEP. (Note: At the time of writing these notes, the PIEPC was still grappling with how to address life cycle impacts and was divided on whether they should include measures of upstream or downstream environmental impacts. Basil Stumborg s presentation [Agenda Item #5] characterises the questions still to be resolved by the PIEPC.) Tim mentioned that the impacts of air emissions can be grouped according to human health impacts, environmental impacts and aesthetic impacts and presented the damage function approach to calculating impacts or costs. He summarized the results of the PIEPC discussion and their proposal to use the volume of emissions as the measure for air impacts. This figure will be based on 2004 IEP environmental data, modified through consultation with IPPs so that the figures represent, as close as possible, average facility emissions. Questions & Discussion The following clarification and discussion took place after Tim s presentation: Upstream GHG emissions from natural gas production. In response to a question about whether BC Hydro has undertaken analysis to quantify the upstream GHG emissions from natural gas production and whether the PIEPC had this information when deciding to limit GHG emissions at site; Tim responded that the PIEPC discussed the possibility of natural gas and coal having significant upstream GHG impacts. Basil added that the PIEPC is interested in exploring this issue in more detail going forward. Another participant questioned whether the upstream natural gas impacts would have happened anyway, that is, B.C. gas production serves a North American market not just potential B.C. gas-fired plants. GHG emissions from large hydro with storage. A comment was made that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is re-evaluating its position on whether large hydro is a source of GHG emissions. The follow-up question was whether BC Hydro should reassess its figures on GHG emissions associated with large hydro. Tim responded that BC Hydro has participated in a number of studies to assess the potential for GHGs to be emitted from its reservoirs, and found that GHG emissions are emitted from shallow and wide reservoirs, whereas BC Hydro s reservoirs are deep and narrow. Based on this, BC Hydro feels that any GHG emissions from its large hydro facilities would be insignificant. Measures for local air emissions. In response to a question about whether the quality or significance of a local air shed would be accounted for in the measure; Tim responded that this needs to be resolved. If the PIEPC uses strictly the volume of emissions as the measure for air impacts, then this issue is not addressed. The PIEPC also discussed a measure where the volume of emissions would be population-weighted, which is intended to reflect the quality or significance as defined by how many people live there. GHG emissions from concrete production. A participant commented that concrete production results in significant CO2 emissions. Tim added that this is another example of the upstream/downstream boundary issue. Concrete production is an upstream impact of Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 6 of 11

7 large hydroelectric facility construction, therefore not currently contemplated as an air impact measure for the PIEPC. Weighting factors for air emissions. In response t a question about whether BC Hydro planned to use any weighting factors to trade off between the impacts of the different types of emissions; Basil responded that there are techniques using either expert judgement or stakeholder value judgement to trade off between different types of emissions that have been discussed with the PIEPC. Measures based on stressor versus impact local air emissions. A participant commented that trade-off decisions based on NOx and PM emissions, as opposed to impacts, are not meaningful. Clean and green energy definitions. In response to a participant question about the B.C. Clean Energy standard for GHG emissions and whether it was based on the GHG emissions associated with a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine; Tim responded that the guideline needs to be clarified in some areas as it also includes a stipulation that a net environmental improvement needs to be demonstrated. It was generally agreed that B.C. Clean Energy equals green energy projects plus cogeneration projects. IEP evaluation process and clean and green energy. In response to several questions about how the IEP used clean and green energy in the portfolio modelling process and how this analysis would impact acquisition calls; Tim clarified that these typically have been used as criteria for acquisition calls and would not necessarily be used as decision criteria for the PIEPC. AGENDA ITEM #5 Summary of Provincial IEP Committee Meeting 2 Basil Stumborg started by presenting the decision task for the 2005 IEP and a brief outline of the process to make a decision on a preferred portfolio. He also presented the summary PIEPC recommendations on how to measure environmental impacts to date. They are: Impact Category Water Air Land Confirmed measure Other areas of interest not resolved Weighted hectares of impact Presence of fish, quality of stream Volume of emissions Weighting of emissions by population and impact, monetization of impacts, life cycle impacts Focus of interest Fish Human health, global warming Area of impact Weighted by? Wildlife? Note: Question marks in the above table denote areas where further discussion is required by the PIEPC. Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 7 of 11

8 Questions & Discussion The following points of clarification and discussion took place following Basil s summary: Possible regulatory constraints on the IEP. In response to the question whether the BCUC would allow BC Hydro to consider other portfolios than the least cost portfolio; Basil responded that while the BCUC has been fairly specific on the low cost requirement, they have also provided for the consideration of other attributes where there is a reasonably foreseeable financial liability. For example, GHG emissions. Exclusion of certain resource options. In response to a question whether nuclear and large hydro (on undeveloped river systems) were being considered as resource options for the IEP; Basil stated that nuclear projects are not being considered on direction from the B.C. Government s Energy Plan and Site C is the large hydro option being considered for large hydro in the IEP because of the relative amount of study done on that particular project. Basil added that it is unclear whether further large hydro projects on undeveloped river systems are open to consideration in the future, although it would likely depend on stakeholder opinion. Regional stakeholder sessions response to Site C. In response to a question about the reaction of regional stakeholders to the proposed Site C; Basil referred participants to the regional session meeting notes at Development risk assessment. In response to a question about how the PIEPC has addressed development risk factors to date, for example, getting Site C permitted; Basil responded that there had been little discussion on this at the PIEPC to date. Wind and geothermal land impact measures. A participant commented that concerns with the correctness of the land impact measures for wind and geothermal have been raised numerous times, with no evidence of a plan about how these concerns will be address. The participant is concerned that despite these issues, the measures will not be changed in the 2005 IEP. Monetization of air emission impacts. In response to a participant question about how the PIEPC wanted to consider the monetization of air emission impacts; Basil answered that the PIEPC is interested in looking at monetization where it poses a real financial risk to BC Hydro, for example, with GHG emissions. Basil mentioned that it was possible, and perhaps desirable, to do the trade-off analysis without doing explicit monetization of all air emission impacts. IEP energy acquisition planning cycle. In response to a question about how the IEP process informs acquisition calls; Basil acknowledged that this was an important question but that BC Hydro has not been able to answer this question in full yet because the planning process is evolving. IPP participants stated that their view of a particular topic or issue might change if they understood how it would impact future acquisition calls. As an example, the possibility of monetization of air emissions resulting in bid price adders in future calls. IPPs care about monetization if it is used in the next acquisition call for adders. Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 8 of 11

9 Long-term planning objective: no net incremental environmental impact. A participant commented that the cost of mitigation might be an appropriate measure for the no net incremental environmental impact in the future. Regional government representation at PIEPC. In response to a question about whether there was regional government representation on the PIEPC, Basil responded that regional governments were not involved at the PIEPC as there was a need to limit numbers. The participant commented that municipal governments are influential in project development decisions. Monetization of impacts. A participant commented that there are a number of problems associated with monetization of impacts and that monetization should not be a limiting factor as numbers will inevitably be wrong. AGENDA ITEM #6 Group Discussion Basil Stumborg then presented a series of questions to the group: Are relevant environmental attributes missing? What data gaps need to be closed for the 2005 IEP? What data gaps should be closed for the 2007 IEP? Should any of the proposed environmental attributes not be included? Are environmental attributes represented consistently across projects / resource options? If not, is the discrepancy acceptable due to data / time / cost limitations? Questions & Discussion Basil asked the group to frame the discussion according to measures for land, air and water impacts. The points of clarification and discussion that took place during the group discussion according to issue area were: Measures for Land Impacts Land impact measure for wind. A participant asked whether the land measure for wind was based on larger fenced area or area lost to footprint, for example, roads, facilities. At regional sessions, BC Hydro presented numbers on the latter but there is still some uncertainty over the numbers proposed. Another participant commented that footprint numbers are still an order of magnitude too high. Permit versus lease area. In response to a participant question about whether the land impact figures are based on area of permit or area of lease; Basil responded that he didn t know which measure was used; however, BC Hydro will follow up on this. The participant further noted that for some resource options, for example, geothermal, the lease area is substantially larger than the permitted area. Post workshop note: To clarify, land impact for wind resource includes the total permitted area that includes road, turbines distribution lines to collector substations, and any land clearing. It is recognized that much of the permitted land area is not impacted Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 9 of 11

10 which is a topic under discussion as part of the technical resource options engagement for the Resource Options Report. Provincial ministry regulations or guidelines. A participant commented that it would be worthwhile to investigate how the provincial ministry assesses whether land has been impacted, and suggested that BC Hydro adopt a similar process. Wind land use impacts. A participant commented that land impact measures for wind should account for the fact that turbines can co-exist with other uses such as farming and forestry. Wind land impact measures and capacity assumptions. A participant commented that the land impact figures for wind are dependent on what capacity factors are assumed. Alternative land impact measures. A participant commented that BC Hydro should consider a productivity number, for example, Gigawatt hours per hectare. Measures for Air Impacts Upstream GHG emissions. A participant commented that BC Hydro needs to define the natural gas bias in studies, or the lack of inclusion of GHG emissions at source of production. Development risk assessment. A participant commented that BC Hydro has assumed that all projects are permitable and that this may not be realistic given stakeholder views on certain resource options in certain regions. The participant suggested that projects with high development risk should be removed from consideration. Risk mitigation. In response to a participant question about how BC Hydro addressed the lumpiness of supply options and potential contingency plans within the IEP portfolio evaluation process; Tim responded that risk mitigation is addressed by the flexibility in how BC Hydro schedules portfolios. The two year IEP cycle is also intended to address the risk of changes in forecast scenarios. GHG emissions from large hydro reservoirs. A participant commented that BC Hydro should calculate the GHG emissions associated with the creation or maintenance of large hydro reservoirs, as they are non-zero. GHG emissions from construction. A participant commented that GHG emissions associated with construction should also be included in the assessment of impact. Basil responded that BC Hydro is committed to doing more work on this, which would be presented to the PIEPC. This would likely be a high level assessment to evaluate the order of magnitude of upstream and downstream impacts, and may point to additional future work. Expanding size of portfolio requirements and mitigating GHG liability. A comment was made that BC Hydro should have the ability to create a portfolio larger than required and to look at trade-off opportunities within a portfolio to reduce GHG emissions. Human health impacts. A participant commented that human health impacts from air emissions should be considered. Basil responded that the population-weighted measure included in the PIEPC proposal is meant to be a proxy to address this issue. Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 10 of 11

11 Inclusion of benefits of resource options. A comment was made that there should be a way in the IEP to build in positive attributes, for example, economic development opportunities (through new road development), recreation development, and removal of thinnings from forestry for biomass projects, which reduces forest fires. Inclusion of downstream GHG impacts. In response to a question about whether the downstream impacts (particularly dollar costs) of GHG emissions should be included; Tim responded that BC Hydro is doing this to the extent that we are purchasing offsets to mitigate BC Hydro GHG emissions. Measures for Water Impacts Water impacts of non-hydro projects. A participant commented that impacts on aquatic resources need to be included for any resource that requires infrastructure to cross a watershed, for example, road building. Inclusion of downstream GHG emission impacts on aquatic resources. A participant commented that BC Hydro should consider the potential downstream impacts of global warming, such as reduction in water flows. Inclusion of socio-economic impacts to upstream users of watersheds. A participant suggested that the socio-economic impacts of hydro projects should be included, for example, limitations to access to drinking water or limitations to industry development because water rights are assigned to a hydro facility. Upstream water impacts from oil and gas production. A participant suggested that they would like to see information on the upstream impacts of oil and gas on watersheds associated with road construction. AGENDA ITEM #7: Wrap Up Basil Stumborg concluded the session by confirming that notes and presentation materials would be posted on the BC Hydro web site. He also summarized the action items for BC Hydro to work on resulting from the meeting, highlighting the land measures in particular. Meeting held March 9, 2005 a.m. at the Westin Grand in Vancouver Page 11 of 11