Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bonneville Power Administration Review

Transcription

1 Columbia River Treaty Review Update January 11, 2013 PNUCC Presentation Stephen Oliver Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Co Coordinator for Columbia River Treaty Co Chair Sovereign Review Team Slide 1

2 Current Activities Sovereign Review Team Activities Reviewing Iteration 2 results Developing elements of a draft straw recommendation Developing guidance for STT on Iteration 3 modeling Sovereign Technical Team Activities iti Completed the Iteration 2 hydroregulation modeling at the end of December Next step is to analyze hydroregulation output*, perform impact assessment modeling and analyses (e.g. water temperature, fish survival, generation), brief SRT Work with SRT to 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. Conversations with the Canadian Entity (B.C. Province and B.C. Hydro) on possibilities under the Treaty post Engaging regional stakeholders through joint analyses, briefings, listening sessions, direct input and comment. Slide 3

4 Issues Flood risk management limited to current level of risk Corps' responsibility is to manage storage in U.S. and Canada consistent with the currently authorized level of flood risk management (FRM) Any alternative that reduces the amount of U.S. storage available for FRM and increases flood risk, is unacceptable as part of a recommendation Canadian Entitlement (discussed more later) A reduction in the current level of Canadian Entitlement Return (CER) is appropriate to reflect actual value post-2024 Reduced CER could provide the basis for post-2024 rebalancing of the value of the CRT among regional interests. Fish passage (above CHJ, GCL, DWR, BRN) Consider concept for above CHJ and GCL as means for DOS to assess Canadian mutual interest Leave Hells Canyon consideration with appropriate p venue (FERC) Presently do not consider there to be any nexus to CRT for DWR Reconnecting flood plains Determined not to result in any significant flood risk benefits Benefits may be in long-term flood plain restoration, however, does not require unique set of operations affecting Columbia River Treaty May be further evaluated post-2014 (other venue) Slide 4

5 Downstream Power Benefit (DPB) and Canadian Entitlement (CE) Treaty roughly doubled storage of Columbia River System Reduced uncontrolled spring flows reduced flood risk in US and Canada Increased fall, winter and late summer flows for power benefit Increased power generation in US enabled by Canadian dams is called the Downstream Power Benefit (DPB) By Treaty negotiations, Canada is entitled to 1/2 of an agreed formula for the DPB, called the Canadian Entitlement (CE) DPB calculated 6 years in advance, not based on actual observed benefits In the Treaty : Negotiated formula to calculate the DPB; does not include new reservoirs after 1961 (i.e. Libby and Dworshak, new operating constraints, and transmission line to market to California). Forecast of CE payments for the first 30 years was expected to sufficiently compensate Canada for construction of dams (together with a flood control payment). Slide 5

6 2025 Value of Canadian Entitlement if Treaty Continues Under Existing Methodology 450 amw, with about 1,300 MW capacity Worth roughly $ million per year (inc. 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 6

7 Expected Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review Why is CE still so high? h? Treaty negotiators expected the DBP and CE to decrease significantly during the first 60 years of the Treaty. High load growth expected to lead to significant development of thermal generation. Value of Canadian storage would decrease as thermal generation increases. Expected CE to decrease to about 130 amw energy and 0 MW capacity by Reality Load growth was smaller plus conservation and development of renewable generation reduced development of thermal generation. Construction of other hydro-projects, notably Libby and Dworshak, was specifically excluded from calculation of CE. 60% of Intertie capability to export non-firm was excluded Slide 7

8 Two Theories for Value of DPB Post 2024 Theory 1: Canadian investment in the Treaty dams is fully compensated by 2024, and the post-2024 CE should reflect ½ actual benefit received from coordination. The estimated value of continued coordination is roughly 90 amw DPB, or about 45 amw CE and small capacity quantity Theory 2: Existing calculation of CE should be paid to Canada by the US as long as the Treaty continues. DPB and CE would continue to be calculated on theoretical value of US generation with and without existence of Canadian dams in place to store and release water. (About 450 amw, and 1300 capacity in 2025) This is the default future. Modifications to the calculation lation that update some components could produce lower CE Slide 8

9 Delivering Canadian Entitlement First 30-years of CE sold to US utilities to provide immediate cash to Canada for dam construction (Canada did not need power then) When CE is delivered to Canada: Treaty specifies default delivery at Oliver in SE BC north of Grand Coulee (unless otherwise mutually agreed) Mid-1990s US and Canada agreed to transmit over existing lines (mostly along I-5 corridor to Vancouver) until Sept 2024 Post-2024, Canada could request delivery to Oliver. This would require new transmission i lines (perhaps through h Okanagan Valley region) Future size and shape of CE, and whether it exists, is a critical question If any major construction required, need to know in about 2014 time period. Slide 9

10 CE Summary From a power perspective, the U.S. is currently significantly overcompensating Canada (40-50 amw expected benefit compared to 450 amw current expected obligation) Changing the calculation could achieve reduced values in this range (but requires negotiation). Rough number: BPA must still estimate value of other power benefits from continuing the Treaty (e.g. certainty of operations for energy and capacity, FELCC, seasonal value, etc.). Is it reasonable to propose the post-2024 DPB and CE calculation be commensurate with ½ actual value of coordinated d operation? Any value retained from a reduced CE obligation could be substantial and used to functionally mitigate the uncertainty in operations (if no coordinated Treaty operations) There may be the potential for broader regional support for CE reduction if part of such reduction is made available to pay for some additional ecosystem interests Some preliminary SRT ideas have suggested a Treaty Savings Fund Slide 10

11 Iteration ti 2 Components 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 E2 Reservoirs as Natural Lakes Generally hold reserves full and pass inflows through, no system flood control, no operation specifically for power E3 Summer Flows Store water in Canadian projects during the fall and release to augment summer flows in U.S. (+NTS) E4 [reconnect flood plains] (focuses on potential levee removal for purpose of ecosystem benefits) E5 Dry Year Strategy Store water in Canadian projects during the winter/early spring to augment spring flows in lowest 20% of water years (+NTS) H1 Optimize Canadian and U.S. hydropower systems Optimized the Canadian and U.S. hydropower systems using current system projects H2 Optimize the Canadian and U.S. power system with the BiOp operations included Including fish operations, optimize the Canadian and U.S. hydropower system using current system projects F1 Full Use of Authorized Storage Maximize use of authorized U.S. storage (full draft as needed) F2 No Called Upon Flood Storage No use of Canadian storage for U.S. flood risk management 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 level Slide 11

12 Other Impact Analyses Intended to be comparative basic analyses. Some only on Iteration 2 or 3. Water supply (Irrigation) Navigation Recreation Cultural resources Water quality (temperature, total dissolved gas, sediment & toxics) Resident fish Wildlife Anadromous Fish (perhaps lamprey) (Compass/CSS) Estuary Climate change Hydropower Flood risk Slide 12

13 Schedule Iteration 2 Modeling SRT Iteration 2 Analysis and Doc Iteration 3 Development Iteration 3 Modeling Iteration 3 Analysis and Doc Reg gional SRT Framework and Elements of Recommendation Development Regional Outreach on Elements of Recommendation Regional briefings and listening sessions Recommendation Formulation Regional Outreach on Recommendation Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Slide 13

14 Regional Power Interests - Next Steps US Entity will be requesting preliminary i input from some key regional stakeholders including power interests regarding future of CRT post-2024 (January 2013) Please respond and also work with your SRT reps to have your perspectives included in their thinking Participate in workshops and comment on Iteration 2 studies and input on Iteration 3 Continue to assess and explain the importance of the CRT and any potential future variations on regional power interests and the economy Slide 14