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

Transcription

1 Meeting Date and Location October 25, 2005 Holiday Inn, Topaz Room 3020 Blanshard St., Victoria, B.C. 1:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Attendees and Interests Name Interest/Organization Jim Campbell Andy Jani Bill Jackson Bruce Mclldoon Ludo Bertsch Matt Schwett Pat Foster Richard Pearson Guy Dauncey Michael Mascall John Newcomb General interest in BC Hydro Interest in generation, transmission and how IEPs are integrated Energy conservation for the city of Victoria General interest on behalf of local government Demand (time of use rates and conservation) University of Victoria Energy issues around the province Lake Cowichan City Council Energy concerns when constructing new buildings Sustainable Energy of BC Interested citizen Interested citizen Provincial IEP Committee (PIEPC) member BC Hydro/IEP Representatives Name Department and Organization Role Mary Hemmingsen Power Planning and Portfolio BC Hydro Rohan Soulsby Power Planning and Portfolio BC Hydro Ted Olynyk Community Relations BC Hydro Presenter Presenter Host Anne Cochran Independent Consultant Note Taker Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 1 of 9

2 Rohan welcomed everyone to the Victoria IEP meeting and then gave a Power Point presentation outlining the process and the feedback received from the previous IEP meetings in the spring. Participants had the following questions and comments: 1. What is an IEP and why is it being undertaken? How much is energy demand growing by each year? It is growing by 1.5 per cent per year. What would be considered a small buffer? 4000 MWh over a defined period of time. This will be reviewed every four years. What is the buffer BC Hydro has today? At the moment BC Hydro doesn t have one. We re talking about a buffer to meet load requirements over a critical water year and in very cold weather conditions. Why don t any of the strategies propose generating a surplus to export? The Provincial IEP Committee (PIEPC) did look at that possibility in some portfolios, but they weren t included in the final choices. Why does some of the data not support Power Smart? Why was it not always a unanimous choice? There were some concerns about cost effectiveness and industry looked at ways in which they could benefit. What is considered small hydro? Run of river generating stations that don t involve the diversion or storage of water. Why hasn t cost been mentioned until now? It is important and it is the objective function so it should be mentioned at the outset of the presentation. Cost is important; it is the objective function. BC Hydro is regulated on a cost basis by the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC). So when we looked at portfolios, we did so with cost in mind. 2. Questions on Self-Sufficiency Trade-offs When the PIEPC looked at low water, was the effect of climate change on melting snow pack considered? If there is no snow, then eventually there will Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 2 of 9

3 be no runoff water which would have an effect on dams. This has been taken into consideration; however, it is important to note that the impact on the Columbia and Peace systems will be markedly different. The Columbia system is fed by melting snow pack, while the Peace system is fed by precipitation. Do financial/social/environmental impacts factor in the impacts of a rise in sea level over the next 20 years? We previously spoke about the least-cost mandate of BCUC; they are also required to look at future environmental costs and these too have to be reflected in BC Hydro s analysis. Did the PIEPC look at the future modeling of climate change on precipitation? We are at present, but it s complex and the modeling of the impacts on climate change are still being reviewed. When the PIEPC calculated GHG emissions, were methane emissions included? Yes. Is the PIEPC saying no to exporting energy but yes to having more than we need? It is saying no to producing energy solely for export and yes to producing surplus energy to meet capacity. 3. Questions on Resource Options Mix When looking at the impact and costs of transmission lines and gas pipelines, how do they compare? What is the difference? Generally, BC Hydro looks at upstream impacts and footprint. There isn t a lot of data on that yet. Siting gas plants in the Lower Mainland wouldn t require incremental pipelines as they are already in place. So you wouldn t have to build additional pipeline; however, you would have to build additional transmission lines to deliver the energy. In your trade-off slide, why have you chosen to make low cost the reference point? Does low cost represent business as usual? No, BC Hydro doesn t have a business as usual approach. Cost represents the status quo in the trade off slide because BC Hydro is regulated on a least cost basis by the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC). When you say there is not enough supply, do you mean supply and capacity? Yes, we mean both. Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 3 of 9

4 Has anyone looked at waste management as a fuel source? Yes and it presents interesting opportunities. Unfortunately, it doesn t yet represent sufficient energy resources. When the PIEPC were persuaded on clean coal, did they have a representative from the industry talk to them? Conversations I have had make it clear that no one knows how to produce zero CO2/GHG emissions from coal yet. The PIEPC didn t support clean coal. The inclusion of clean coal is as one resource among others that is needed beyond demand. Members of the PIEPC would want to see more about clean coal before making any determinations. What about the Columbia River downstream benefits, why aren t these benefits included in the mix? It is considered an option and BC Hydro does look at it as an interim bridging option. The treaty expires in 2024 so in terms of firm energy that BC Hydro can count on for planning purposes, all of the downstream benefits end in the year Would it be possible to have 100% green energy? Can it generate enough energy for the province s needs? B.C. s green energy resources are not sufficient to cover the 30,000 which are required to meet capacity over the next 30 years. Therefore, green energy resources would need to be backed by other capacity additions and would require BC Hydro to advance its infrastructure resources. 4. Questions on Demand Side Management (DSM) You refer to Power Smart 1 through 5. What is the difference between each incarnation of Power Smart? What are the components of each incarnation of Power Smart? - Power Smart 1: the DSM programs that BC Hydro ran in the 1990s. - Power Smart 2: the DSM programs that BC Hydro are currently running (F2002 thru F2012). - Power Smart 3: 5 more years of DSM (F2013 thru F2017) at about the same level of effort as Power Smart 2. - Power Smart 4:15 years of more aggressive DSM, on top of Power Smart 2 and 3, starting in F2010. Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 4 of 9

5 - Power Smart 5: 17 years of even more aggressive DSM, on top of Power Smart 2, 3 and 4, starting in F2008. You mentioned 1.5 cents as the threshold cost of Power Smart 2. What is the threshold cost of other Power Smart programs? As BC Hydro increases the scope of the Power Smart programs, it increases the cost to the consumer to implement the program (now up to 7.5 cents). BC Hydro assumes a 10 year payback period and a utility opportunity cost which is much less than the cost to the consumer. 5. Questions on Site C What is Site C? It is a large hydro project downstream from some of our existing facilities. It is controversial because it will flood land, doubling the width of the Peace River between Fort St. John and the Peace Dam. There is significant opposition from First Nations who first want outstanding claims dealt with and settled (Williston) before even considering Site C. How many kilometers of land will be impacted by Site C? Approximately 70 km will be affected. Was the North prepared/able to see power as a provincial requirement? We know how First Nations feel about Site C, but what about the rest of the Northern population? Everyone in the North is feeling challenged by Site C. Everyone felt that impacts would have to be addressed and historical grievances settled. People in the North are already feeling pushed. What are the estimated transmission losses between Site C and Vancouver? BC Hydro anticipates losses of between 8-11 per cent. Currently, our system average losses are 7 per cent. What is the planning level cost estimate for Site C? The cost estimate is outlined in the Resource Options Report of the 2005 IEP The Resource Options report shows a capital cost of $47/ MW with a minus 10 per cent plus 40 per cent uncertainty band which corresponds to a "medium" price uncertainty. What amount of B.C. s output is exported? BC Hydro doesn t plan to export anything more than that which is excess at the time. Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 5 of 9

6 Have we been net importers or exporters each year? BC has been a net importer for a number of years because BC Hydro has had opportunities to purchase power at a low cost. If Site C is included in the selected strategy proposed by BC Hydro, what s the likelihood of Cabinet approving it? Site C was only considered an option on the understanding that more information would be gathered. They say we are now 90 per cent hydro power, what if we bring Site C online? What percentage will Hydro represent then? It would represent 16 per cent of the incremental resources that are needed. 6. Questions on Burrard Generating Station In comparison with retiring Burrard, how will maintaining Burrard for capacity affect emissions? It is deemed to be insignificant. Was it determined by consensus of the PIEPC that Burrard should not be retired? No, there was not consensus on retiring Burrard. Generally members of the PIEPC felt that Burrard should be maintained for capacity. If you are looking at the choice between maintaining Burrard or accessing power from its equivalent in the U.S., how would the costs compare? You can t rely on cost only when thinking about accessing power from the U.S. The more important consideration is of depending upon a resource so far from the source. What would the price difference be? It would probably cost approximately 40 per cent more. I understand that Burrard s generators are used for synchronistic mediation of power shortages. Is that true? Yes, however there will have to be an additional investment in the transmission system. I don t see a strategy that includes green energy, pursues Site C and retires Burrard? Why isn t that combination included in the strategies? The strategies presented are those that were identified by the PIEPC. Where would Hydro get a small buffer if Burrard is retired and Site C is not pursued? You would need wind, biomass and small hydro and you would need to increase requirements for the supply of green energy. Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 6 of 9

7 7. Four Broad Directions for B.C. s Future Energy Rohan emphasized that much like the other stakeholders who were consulted in the IEP process, the Provincial Committee members are a diverse group, with diverse opinions; however main themes and recommendations emerged from their discussions and input nonetheless. He explained the end result is four strategies, each of which comes with varying costs and tradeoffs and represents different directions or strategies for BC Hydro. 7.1 Your Comments and Input The next part of the session would allow participants to provide their input on the strategies. The Provincial IEP Committee (PIEPC) discussed and deliberated on four broad strategies. These strategies are presented in the following table: Self Sufficiency Strategy #1 Strategy #2 Strategy #3 Strategy #4 A small buffer for insurance A small buffer for insurance Resource Mix Green Green Demand Side Management A small buffer for insurance Low Cost Mix (including green, coal, and others) A small buffer for insurance Low Cost Mix (including green, coal, and others) Power Smart 5 Power Smart 5 Power Smart 5 Power Smart 5 Site C No Yes No Yes Burrard Generating Station Retire Maintain for capacity Maintain for capacity Maintain for capacity Strategy #4 would be least cost because of Site C for the life of the contract. Strategy #3 is most diversified, but still has Site C in the future. PIEPC came to consensus on Power Smart, self-sufficiency and for the most part, maintaining Burrard Thermal for capacity. There was disagreement around Site C and the overall resource mix. When PIEPC voted on the strategies, everyone had different first choices, while everyone's second choices revolved around Strategy #2. BC Hydro will tabulate the results of all the regional meetings and will place them on the BC Hydro IEP web site The results of the Victoria session are presented in the following table. Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 7 of 9

8 Victoria Results Ranking Strategies Count n/a n/a n/a n/a Strategy #1 Strategy #2 Strategy #3 Strategy #4 Comments, concerns and suggestions raised by participants regarding the presentation and the IEP process: In the graphs of the presentation, when depicting trend lines, provide the high medium and low trends so people can see the highs and lows and weigh it all out. Place less emphasis on generation. In the graphs I ve seen today, there is a lot of emphasis on generation and little on demand. In your literature, you talk about supply/demand, but the focus is predominantly on supply. As a result, when Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 8 of 9

9 people review the literature or the graphs, they tend to discuss increasing generation as opposed to reducing demand. This is a huge shortfall. I m concerned that we have approved a time of use rate and yet the ratio of low to high hasn t been discussed, and is differentiated by only a small disparity. If you don t encourage people with sizeable incentives, then time of use will have no impact. So if you then say that Power Smart 5 promotes time of use, it doesn t really because there isn t sufficient incentive to follow it. We have the advantage that Ontario Hydro is going aggressively to time of use. They have just gone through their rate structure and the ratio is 3.3 from high to low. How was the ratio determined here in B.C.? In BC Hydro s terms of reference, is there mention made of the way in which decisions made in B.C. will affect the rest of the world and the world climate? If every utility thinks globally and long-term as opposed to locally and short term, we will all be in a better place. The strategies presented today reflect a shortsighted approach. Hasn t anyone looked at producing surplus green energy and exporting to south of the border? For B.C., it has more than an environmental impact; it also represents an economic loss. 8. Next Steps Rohan thanked everyone for attending. The next steps for BC Hydro are to file the IEP report with the BCUC at the end of November The Revenue Requirement Process will then begin in March, The IEP process will begin again in 2007 (and every two years thereafter). All of these documents will become available on BC Hydro s IEP website Meeting held October 25, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 9 of 9