NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT “Introduction to Operations and the Non Treaty Storage Scenarios” Presenter: Jim Gaspard
Jan 19, 2016
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