NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT “Introduction to Operations and the Non Treaty Storage Scenarios” Presenter: Jim Gaspard.

NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT

“Introduction to Operations and the Non Treaty Storage Scenarios”

Presenter: Jim Gaspard

Content:

• Overview of Treaty/Non-Treaty• Modifications to Operation

– Supplemental Agreements– Non-Treaty Storage Operations

• Non-Treaty Scenarios• System Modeling• Modeling Output

• Climate Change

Definitions - Flow

• Flow:– cfs: cubic feet per second– kcfs: 1000’s of cubic feet per

second. • Mica Unit discharge: 11 kcfs.• Revelstoke Unit discharge: 15 kcfs.

Definitions - Volume

• Reservoir Storage Volume:– MAF: Million Acre Feet. Volume of water in

1 million acres, 1 foot thick. • 504 kcfs flowing for a 24 hr period• Top 10 feet at Kinbasket• Top 8 feet at Arrow

WHAT IS THE NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT?

A commercial agreement between BC Hydro and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) that provides further coordination of Kinbasket and Arrow reservoir, beyond that which is provided by the Columbia River Treaty.

Non-Treaty Storage Agreement

6

Treaty vs. Non-Treaty

Treaty:– International Treaty – Entities: BC Hydro (BCH), Bonneville Power

Administration (BPA) and the US Army Corp of Engineers (COE)

– 15.5 million acre feet (MAF) of storage operated under a set of rules (at Mica, Arrow, and Duncan)

Non-Treaty Storage Agreement:– Bilateral agreement between BCH and BPA– An enabling agreement that provides for up to 5 MAF of

storage operated by mutual agreement (at Mica, but also impacts Arrow)

Treaty Storage (7.0 MAF)

Non-Treaty Storage (5.0 MAF)

Dead Storage (8.0 MAF)

Mica Dam

Treaty Storage (7.1 MAF)

Arrow Dam

7

Storage at Mica and Arrow

Arrow Reservoir

Kinbasket Reservoir

1 MAF = top 10 feet at Kinbasket

1 MAF = top 8 feet at Arrow

Unusable Storage(8.0 MAF)

Treaty Operations (modeled): Kinbasket Reservoir

2320.0

2340.0

2360.0

2380.0

2400.0

2420.0

2440.0

2460.0

2480.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Ele

vati

on

(F

eet)

10% Average 90%Based on AOP 2012, with critical supplemental agreements, and

Mica Flexibility.

2472 feet

2386 feet

2360 feet

Treaty Operations (modeled): Arrow Reservoir

1380.0

1390.0

1400.0

1410.0

1420.0

1430.0

1440.0

1450.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Ele

vati

on

(F

eet)

10% Average 90%

Flood Control Elevation

1413 feet

1437 feet

1403 feet

Based on AOP 2012, with critical supplemental agreements, and

Mica Flexibility.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Re

lea

se

fo

r A

rro

w (

cfs

)

Average (with 10th and 90th Range)

Treaty Operations (modeled): Arrow Releases

Based on AOP 2012, with critical supplemental agreements, and

Mica Flexibility.

Modifications to OperationsSupplemental Agreements

Supplemental Agreements

• A mutual agreement between BCH and BPA/COE to:– Adjust the level of storage in a reservoir,

or– Adjust flows at Arrow

• Purpose:– To increase power benefits, and – Improve the non-power outcome in Mica

and/or Arrow.

Summer Storage Agreement (2006)

Arrow Reservoir level Comparison (ft)

1405

1410

1415

1420

1425

1430

1435

1440

1445

06-0

5-26

06-0

6-09

06-0

6-23

06-0

7-07

06-0

7-21

06-0

8-04

06-0

8-18

06-0

9-01

06-0

9-15

With Agreement

Without AgreementPeak = 1435 ft

Peak = 1443 ft

Modifications to OperationsNon-Treaty Storage Operations

Storage Operation- Initial -

• Summer: Treaty storage typically filled to at/near full

Mica Discharge

Arrow Discharge

Non-Treaty Storage – Fall/Winter Draft

Storage Operation- Winter Draft -

• Late Winter Treaty storage drafted to near empty.

Mica Discharge

Arrow Discharge

Still significant water at Kinbasket.

Non-Treaty Storage – Fall/Winter Draft

Storage Operation- Utilize Flex -

• BCH can draft more than Specified Treaty Q from Mica (Flex).

Mica Discharge

Arrow Discharge

Flood Control Elevation

Non-Treaty Storage Seasonal Operation

Still significant water at Kinbasket.

Storage Operation- NTSA Release -

• NTSA release facilitates greater draft at Mica

Mica Discharge+NT Discharge

Arrow Discharge+ NT Discharge

Flood Control Elevation

Draft benefit of NTSA

Non-Treaty Storage Seasonal Operation

Non-Treaty Scenarios

Modeling Process

Proposed Non-Treaty

Storage Scenarios

21

Non-Treaty Storage Utilization Scenarios

Four different strategies for utilizing Non-Treaty Storage:

• Scenario A: High Potential Utilization (4.5 MAF Max)• Scenario B: Mod Potential Utilization (3.0 MAF Max)• Scenario C: Low Potential Utilization (2.0 MAF Max)• Scenario D: No Utilization

22

Non-Treaty Storage Utilization Scenarios

• Scenario A: (4.5 MAF max utilization)– Approximates operation of Non-Treaty Storage

under the 1990 Agreement– Provides similar flexibility to that which was modeled

in the Columbia Water Use Plan

23

Non-Treaty Storage Utilization Scenarios

• Scenario B: (3.0 MAF max utilization)– BPA proposed operation – Flexibility for release of additional water in summer

to aid salmon out-migration in the US Columbia• 0.5 MAF release in May/June during dry years• Return of storage in upcoming year (if above

average inflows)

24

Non-Treaty Storage Utilization Scenarios

• Scenario C: (2.0 MAF max utilization)– Restrictive operation of Non-Treaty Storage– Considered to be low end volume that will:

• Facilitate fall/winter draft at Kinbasket to serve system load.

• Facilitate key fisheries/power benefit in spring/summer, and

• Provide flexibility to manage Kinbasket Reservoir, in exceptionally high inflow years.

25

Non-Treaty Storage Utilization Scenarios

• Scenario D: (no utilization of NTS)– Approximates operation that would be dictated by

the Treaty

26

Scenario A (4.5 MAF Maximum Utilized)

BCH Non-Treaty Storage (Additional draft at Mica+Arrow due to NTSA)

(2,500)

(2,000)

(1,500)

(1,000)

(500)

-

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Ac

co

un

t D

raft

(k

sfd

)

10%

Average:

90%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ad

dit

ion

al d

raft

(f

eet)

BCH Non-Treaty Storage(Additional draft at Mica + Arrow due to release of Non-Treaty Storage)

Average: 14 feet

Outlier: 30 feet

Ad

dit

ion

al D

raft

(M

AF

)0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

27

Scenario C (2.0 MAF Maximum Utilized)

BCH Non-Treaty Storage (Additional draft at Mica+Arrow due to NTSA)

(2,500)

(2,000)

(1,500)

(1,000)

(500)

-

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)

10%

Average:

90%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ad

dit

ion

al d

raft

(f

eet)

BCH Non-Treaty Storage(Additional draft at Mica + Arrow due to release of Non-Treaty Storage)

Outlier: 20 feet

Average: 10 feet

Ad

dit

ion

al D

raft

(M

AF

)

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

System Modeling

Modeling Process

Proposed Non-Treaty

Storage Scenarios

30

System Modeling Overview

• System modeling:– Using standard computer models used in

BC Hydro long term planning.• HYSIM (60 year, monthly time-step simulation)• GOM (10 year, bi-hourly simulation)

– Outputs: Revelstoke Release and Reservoir

31

System Modeling Overview

• Modeling provides:– Economic optimal operation of BC Hydro system,

given constraints.• Modeling does not provide:

– Wind integration impacts to operations– Operational adjustments that may be made to

manage non-power issues, including:• Managing flood control events.

• Enhancing Arrow Soft Constraints or other system objectives

• Managing non-power issues in other basins.

• Implementing discretionary supplemental agreements, for power or non-power benefit.

Modeling Output

Modeling Process

Proposed Non-Treaty

Storage Scenarios

Kinbasket Reservoir: Scenario D (No NTS usage)

2320.0

2340.0

2360.0

2380.0

2400.0

2420.0

2440.0

2460.0

2480.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Ele

vati

on

(F

eet)

10% Average 90%

Based on AOP 2012, with critical supplemental agreements.

2472 feet

2386 feet

2360 feet

2320.0

2340.0

2360.0

2380.0

2400.0

2420.0

2440.0

2460.0

2480.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)

10% Average 90%

Kinbasket Reservoir: Scenario A (4.5 MAF NTS use possible)

Based on AOP 2012, with critical supplemental agreements.

2467 feet

2369 feet

2336 feet

2320.0

2340.0

2360.0

2380.0

2400.0

2420.0

2440.0

2460.0

2480.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Ele

vati

on

(F

ee

t)

10% Average 90%

2320.0

2340.0

2360.0

2380.0

2400.0

2420.0

2440.0

2460.0

2480.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)

10% Average 90%

Kinbasket Reservoir: Key Differences

Non-Treaty usage will draft more in the

Fall/Winter

Non-Treaty usage will allow reduced full pool

levels at Kinbasket

No Usage

4.5 MAF Scenario

Arrow Reservoir: Scenario D (No NTS usage)

1380.0

1390.0

1400.0

1410.0

1420.0

1430.0

1440.0

1450.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Ele

vati

on

(F

eet)

10% Average 90%

Flood Control Elevation

Based on AOP 2012, with critical supplemental agreements.

1413 feet

1437 feet

1403 feet

1380.0

1390.0

1400.0

1410.0

1420.0

1430.0

1440.0

1450.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)

10% Average 90%

Arrow Reservoir: Scenario A (4.5 MAF NTS use possible)

Flood Control Elevation

Based on AOP 2012, with critical supplemental agreements.

1407 feet

1437 feet

1397 feet

1380.0

1390.0

1400.0

1410.0

1420.0

1430.0

1440.0

1450.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ks

fd)

10% Average 90%

Arrow Reservoir: Key Differences

1380.0

1390.0

1400.0

1410.0

1420.0

1430.0

1440.0

1450.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Ele

vati

on

(F

eet

)

10% Average 90%

Non-Treaty usage will draft more in the fall

Non-Treaty usage will result in lower elevation in

March, with more rapid rise across the freshet

No Usage

4.5 MAF Scenario

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)

Average (with 10th and 90th Range)

Arrow Releases

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Re

lea

se

fo

r A

rro

w (

cfs

)

Average (with 10th and 90th Range)

No NTS Usage

4.5 MAF Usage

Climate Change

42

Impacts of Climate Change on Hydro Systems

• Changes the annual volume of inflows.

• Shifts in timing of the runoff • Changes in Electricity Demand• Greater potential for extreme

events (drought, floods, dam safety design)

• Biodiversity

BC Hydro Climate Change Work:

• BCH is a founding partner in the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC)– Mission: To quantify the impacts of

climate change and variability on the physical environment in Pacific North America.

– 4 year research plan

44

PCIC early general findings

+4°+3°

+5°

+3°

+3°

+3°

-10%-10%

+10%

+10%

+10%

+25%

Precipitation(for 2050’s from 2007 Overview Study)

Mean temperature(for 2050’s from 2007 Overview Study)

S U M M E R

W I N T E R

45

Columbia Mountains - Mica

Potential Impacts on Hydrology

Inflo

ws

(cub

ic m

eter

s pe

r sec

ond)

1984 - 20072008 Inflow yearHistorical median

Legend

Freshet peak flows potentially increased

Summer low flows likely decreased

Spring runoff (freshet) starts earlier

1:10A 1:10 indicates the annual peak flow that can be expected to occur once on average, every 10 years

Inflow years 1984 - 20072008 Inflow yearHistorical medianReturn period frequency for annual peak flowsFor example:

Legend

1:2

1:10

1:100

1:50