columbia river treaty - northwestern division - columbia ... · columbia river treaty columbia...
TRANSCRIPT
5 February 2003 1
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Fifty-First Meetingof the
Canadian and United States Entities and the
Permanent Engineering BoardBriefing Slides by Entity Staff
5 February 2003 2
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Agenda:10:00 am to 2:30 pm, 18th floor Boardroom, BC Hydro
I. Introductory Comments / Meeting Objectives: Entities, PEB Chairs 15 minutesII. Introductory Comments: CRTOC Chairs 10 minutesIII. Policy Directions/Comments: CRT Coordinators 10 minutesIV. Streamlined Methods – Decision for OY 2003 30 minutesV. Brief Overview of Operations OC Chairs 20 minutes VI. Exception Reports (1-2 slides each) / Lunch 130 + 30 minutes
A. August 2001-September 2002 Operations1. Reliability Concerns & Treaty Storage Greg D. and Kelvin K.2. Fishery Operations Allan W. & Cindy H.3. LCA Use Kelvin K. & Pam K.4. Libby Operation Plan Update Cindy H.5. Entitlement Delivery Issues Tony W. & Doug R.6. Spill Test at Libby / VarQ Bill B. & Cindy H.
Embedded Lunch break at 12:00 in meeting room - continue meeting at 12:30B. Operating Committee Activities – Preparing for the Future
1. POP Status Ken S. & Tony W.2. Emerging Burbot Issues Cindy H.3. Flood Control Split and Request Bill B.4. AOP and DOP Status John H. & Tom S.5. BiOp related Activities Cindy H. & Rick P
C. Related Activities1. Hydromet Committee Update Eric W.2. Non-Treaty Storage Agreements Update (info) Kelvin K. Tony W., Pam K.3. Columbia WUP Update Allan W.
VII. Question Period 30 minutes VIII. Adjourn at 2:30 p.m.
5 February 2003 3
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item V Overview of Operations
byOperating Committee Chairs
5 February 2003 4
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Kinbasket (Mica) Reservoir
Summary of Inflows, Outflows, and Levels
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1-Jul-01 1-Aug-01 1-Sep-01 1-Oct-01 1-Nov-01 1-Dec-01 1-Jan-02 1-Feb-02 1-Mar-02 1-Apr-02 1-May-02 1-Jun-02 1-Jul-02 1-Aug-02
Inflo
w, O
utflo
w (k
cfs)
2320
2340
2360
2380
2400
2420
2440
2460
2480
Res
ervo
ir Le
vel (
ft)
Inflow Outflow Elevation Flood Level Full Pool
5 February 2003 5
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Arrow Reservoir
Summary of Inflows, Outflows, and Levels
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1-Jul-01 1-Aug-01 1-Sep-01 1-Oct-01 1-Nov-01 1-Dec-01 1-Jan-02 1-Feb-02 1-Mar-02 1-Apr-02 1-May-02 1-Jun-02 1-Jul-02 1-Aug-02
Inflo
w, O
utflo
w (k
cfs)
1370
1380
1390
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
Res
ervo
ir Le
vel (
ft)
Inflow Outflow Elevation Flood Level Full Pool
5 February 2003 6
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Duncan Reservoir
Summary of Inflows, Outflows, and Levels
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
1-Jul-01 1-Aug-01 1-Sep-01 1-Oct-01 1-Nov-01 1-Dec-01 1-Jan-02 1-Feb-02 1-Mar-02 1-Apr-02 1-May-02 1-Jun-02 1-Jul-02 1-Aug-02
Inflo
w, O
utflo
w (k
cfs)
1790
1800
1810
1820
1830
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
Res
ervo
ir Le
vel (
ft)
Inflow Outflow Elevation Flood Level Full Pool
5 February 2003 7
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Koocanusa (Libby) Reservoir
Summary of Inflows, Outflows, and Levels
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1-Jul-01 1-Aug-01 1-Sep-01 1-Oct-01 1-Nov-01 1-Dec-01 1-Jan-02 1-Feb-02 1-Mar-02 1-Apr-02 1-May-02 1-Jun-02 1-Jul-02 1-Aug-02
Inflo
w, O
utflo
w (k
cfs)
2280
2300
2320
2340
2360
2380
2400
2420
2440
2460
Res
ervo
ir Le
vel (
ft)
Inflow Outflow Elevation Flood Control Full Pool
5 February 2003 8
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Kootenay Lake
Summary of Inflows, Outflows, and Levels
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1-Jul-01 1-Aug-01 1-Sep-01 1-Oct-01 1-Nov-01 1-Dec-01 1-Jan-02 1-Feb-02 1-Mar-02 1-Apr-02 1-May-02 1-Jun-02 1-Jul-02 1-Aug-02
Inflo
w, D
isch
arge
(kcf
s)
1736
1738
1740
1742
1744
1746
1748
1750
1752
1754
1756
Res
ervo
ir Le
vel (
ft)
Inflow Discharge Elevation IJC Level
5 February 2003 9
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(A.1) Pacific Northwest
Reliability Synopsisby
Greg Delwiche
5 February 2003 10
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Regional Loss of Load Probability(NWPPC Analysis –1/14/03)
0123456789
10
LOLP
(P
erc
en
t)
2003 2004 2005 2006
No ImportsAvg ImportsMax Imports
UncertaintyRange 2%
5 February 2003 11
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Regional 2006 LOLP Sensitivity
0 2 4 6 8 10
LOLP (Percent)
Hydro Flex
Import Limits
NW Loads
+ 1000 MWa
No Flex
No Imports
Flex
Max
Current
5 February 2003 12
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
BPA Dry Year Strategy (for addressing seasonal deficits)
Dry Year Principles
Dry Year Tools
Load Reductions
Increase Resources (*)
Reliability Enhancements
Fishery Operations
NMFS Regional Forum
NWPPCMainstem
Rulemaking Process
BiOp Imple-mentation
Financial Tools
PBL FY 2003-2006 Financial Choices Public
Process
Dry Year ToolboxNEXT STEPS: Quantitative analyses of tools to determine the appropriate use under various conditions not including increases in generation due to changes in fishery operations
5 February 2003 13
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
2003 Dry Year Contingency Planning –Applicability of Dry Year Tools
D r y Y e a r T o o ls P r io r i ty fo r 2 0 0 2 /0 3 P r io r it y T o o ls C o m m e n ts
1 S h if t e n e rg y f ro m s u rp lu s p e r io d s in to p ro je c te d d e f ic it p e r io d s
• B P A is c u r re n t ly l im it in g m a rk e t s a le s in o rd e r to u s e th e a v a ila b le f le x ib i lit y o f th e F C R P S to m o v e s u rp lu s f irm e n e rg y in to th e w in te r p e r io d in -o rd e r to c o v e r p ro je c te d p o te n t ia l d e f ic its .
• T h is w a s n o t id e n t if ie d d ire c t ly a s a to o l in th e “G u id e to T o o ls a n d P r in c ip le s fo r a D r y Y e a r S t ra te g y ” , b u t s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d a to o l.
2 • E n e rg y P u rc h a s e s • O p tio n P u rc h a s e s • E n e rg y E x c h a n g e s
• G iv e n th e a n t ic ip a te d c o s t o f th e o th e r D r y Y e a r T o o ls , th e m a rk e t-b a s e d to o ls c u r re n t ly h a v e th e h ig h e s t l ik e lih o o d o f b e in g im p le m e n te d .
• A n a ly s is is b e in g c o n d u c te d b y th e t ra d in g f lo o r to d e te rm in e w h ic h (a n d /o r h o w m u c h o f e a c h ) to o l s h o u ld b e im p le m e n te d .
3 D e m a n d E x c h a n g e P ro g ra m
• T h is to o l p r o v id e s l it t le a d d it io n a l e n e r g y , h o w e v e r it d o e s a l lo w e n e rg y d e m a n d s o v e r p e a k h o u rs to b e re d u c e d .
4 P u b lic e n e rg y C o n s e rv a t io n
• L o n g - te rm e n e rg y c o n s e r v a t io n s h o u ld c o n t in u e to b e p u rs u e d . • I f th is y e a r c o n t in u e s to b e d r y , B P A s h o u ld w o rk w ith o u r c u s to m e rs
to p ro m o te s h o r t- te rm e n e rg y c o n s e rv a t io n m e a s u re s . 5 I r r ig a t io n B u y -D o w n • T h e e f fe c t iv e n e s s o f th is to o l d e p e n d s la rg e ly o n h o w th e h y d ro
s y s te m is o p e ra te d . I f w e c h o o s e to im p le m e n t th is to o l, w e w ill n e e d to s ta r t th e p ro c e s s w ith in th e n e x t fe w w e e k s .
6 D S I B u y D o w n • C u r re n t ly B P A is n o t s e rv in g a n y a p p re c ia b le D S I lo a d f ro m th e F C R P S
7 D is tr ib u te d G e n e ra t io n ( i.e . te m p o ra r y d ie s e l a n d g a s g e n e ra to rs )
• A t th is t im e , th is to o l a p p e a rs to b e th e m o s t c o s t ly a lte rn a t iv e . In a d d it io n , th e re te n d s to b e a s ig n if ic a n t o p p o s it io n to th is to o l in th e e n v iro n m e n ta l c o m m u n ity .
8 R e g io n a l C u r ta i lm e n t
• T h is te n d s to b e a to o l o f la s t re s o r t . T h e re g io n w o u ld h a v e to b e in d ire c ir c u m s ta n c e fo r th e g o v e rn o rs to m a n d a te re g io n a l c u r ta ilm e n t. A d d it io n a lly re s o u rc e a d e q u a c y p ro je c t io n s d o n e in 2 0 0 2 , b y th e C o u n c il, in d ic a te d th a t th e r e g io n h a s a le s s th a n 1 % p ro b a b il it y o f lo s s o f lo a d .
Market options appear to be the most cost-effective tool at this time.
5 February 2003 14
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Long-term Reliability Issues
Energy Crisis of 2000-01 underscores Region’s vulnerability in Resource Adequacy arena:• Post deregulation lack of clarity with regard to Load Serving
Entities’ “Obligation to Serve”.• Lack of certainty (Tx, price, load) makes it difficult for independent
power plant developers to secure investment $.• Market sensitivities make it difficult to secure quality load/resource
information needed for reliability assessments.• New NW Merchant Plants may not be contractually committed to
serve load in Region.• Post-2006 discussions indicate BPA should not augment, but then
BPA cannot be “provider of last resort.”Motivated by 2000-01 Energy Crisis & FERC’s proposed SMD NOPR, NW Power Planning & Conservation Council is initiating Resource Adequacy Forum to:• Establish consistent, transparent Regional Resource Adequacy
Standard.• Explore ways to reasonably ensure Regional Resource Adequacy.
5 February 2003 15
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Treaty Storage Status
Canadian Composite Storage Operationfor 2002-03 Operating Year
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
8/15
/02
8/29
/02
9/12
/02
9/26
/02
10/1
0/02
10/2
4/02
11/7
/02
11/2
1/02
12/5
/02
12/1
9/02
1/2/
03
1/16
/03
1/30
/03
2/13
/03
2/27
/03
3/13
/03
3/27
/03
4/10
/03
4/24
/03
5/8/
03
5/22
/03
6/5/
03
6/19
/03
7/3/
03
7/17
/03
7/31
/03
Period
Stor
age
Con
tent
(ksf
d)
URCTSRActual OperationForecast
5 February 2003 16
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(A.2) Fishery Operations
byAllan Woo and Cindy Henriksen
5 February 2003 17
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Canadian Fishery Investigations
Keenleyside Dam• Jul 10, 2001 - Operation jointly investigated by DFO
and MWLAP• Nov 2002 - Investigator’s report sent to Department
of JusticeDuncan Dam• Oct 13, 2001 - Dam discharge reduced from
6 kcfs to 3 kcfs• Oct 24, 2001 - Local resident reported fish stranding
to MWLAP• Investigation on-going
5 February 2003 18
ColumbiaRiverTreaty U.S. Fishery Operations
No major exceptionsNMFS and USFWS BiOps were implemented• Priest Rapids spring flow was 181 kcfs, objective was
135 kcfs• Lower Granite spring flow was 83 kcfs, objective was
97 kcfs• McNary spring flow was 269 kcfs, objective was 246 kcfs• Lower Granite summer flow was 42 kcfs, objective was
51 kcfs• McNary summer flow was 184 kcfs, objective was 200 kcfs
New fishery discussions on the horizon• Burbot, Conservation Agreement• Kootenai River downstream of Libby
5 February 2003 19
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(A.3) Libby Coordination
Agreement Useby
Kelvin Ketchum and Pam Kingsbury
5 February 2003 20
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Libby CoordinationAgreement Use
Libby Coordination Agreement Provisional Draft ActivityAugust 2001 through September 2002
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
8/10
/01
8/24
/01
9/7/
01
9/21
/01
10/5
/01
10/1
9/01
11/2
/01
11/1
6/01
11/3
0/01
12/1
4/01
12/2
8/01
1/11
/02
1/25
/02
2/8/
02
2/22
/02
3/8/
02
3/22
/02
4/5/
02
4/19
/02
5/3/
02
5/17
/02
5/31
/02
6/14
/02
6/28
/02
7/12
/02
7/26
/02
8/9/
02
8/23
/02
9/6/
02
9/20
/02
Date
Prov
isio
nal D
raft
(ksf
d)
5 February 2003 21
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Libby-Canadian Treaty Storage Exchange Agreement
Provided for a balancing of storage between Libby and Canadian Storage to provide non-power benefits in the US and Canada A total of 63 ksfd of additional water was stored in Libby and an equivalent amount was released from Treaty StoragePower benefits were gained at Libby with this operationTotal power benefits were calculated to be $454,888 ($US)Forty percent of the benefit ($181,955 US) is being returned to Canada as energy during February 2003
5 February 2003 22
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(A.4) Libby Operating Plan
Updateby
Cindy Henriksen
5 February 2003 23
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Libby Operating Plan
Updated November 14, 2002Includes USFWS 2000 Biological Opinion updates• VARQ flood control at Libby• Spill at Libby• Updated sturgeon volume as measured at Libby
– New volumes were developed March 25-26, 2002– These volumes were memorialized August 23, 2002
5 February 2003 24
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(A.5) Canadian Entitlement &
Transmission Issuesby
Doug Robinson and Tony White
5 February 2003 25
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Update and Discussion ofTransmission Issues (II)
Entitlement deliveries are treated according to standard utility practice as specified in the Scheduling Guidelines Appendix to the 1999 Entity Agreement.In Dec 2001, TBL established a schedule curtailment procedure for use during periods of extreme congestion, that places Entitlement return on an equal footing with other firm US Pacific Northwest customers.
5 February 2003 26
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Energy & Capacity Returns
1 Aug 00 – 31 Jul 01 277.4 aMW with a peak of 794 MW w/ losses 267.4 aMW with a peak of 779 MW
1 Aug 01 – 31 July 02 292.1 aMW with a peak of 783 MW w/ losses 281.6 aMW with a peak of 768 MW
1 Aug 02 – 31 Mar 02 293.1 aMW with a peak of 642 MW w/ losses 282.5 aMW with a peak of 630 MW
1 Apr 03 – 31 Jul 03 534.5 aMW with a peak of 1171 MW w/ losses 515.3 aMW with a peak of 1149 MW
5 February 2003 27
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Entitlement-ImpactedForced Outages
Three during Oct 01-Sep 02 period[1] Thursday 13 Dec 01, 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; BCH a net exporter; BCH limitation as RAS plan out-of-service[2] Thursday, 28 Mar 02, 3-5 p.m.; BCH a net importer; BPA’s Echo Lake-Monroe line real-time failure (forced outage)[3] Tuesday-Thursday, 17-19 Sep 02: 3-11 p.m. 17 Sep + 2 a.m. 18 Sep + midnight-1 a.m. 19 Sep; BCH a net exporter; Puget Sound Energy pole fails, knocks out 2 BPA 230 kV lines near Custer substation (forced outage)
5 February 2003 28
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
FERC’S STANDARD MARKET DESIGN NOPR
Following are summary points to FERC on 5 September 2002• PNW rights based on historical use or single dispatch may
not protect users from congestion costs• Transmission rights are needed for system coordination
agreements and treaties• Hydro requires significant day-ahead to real-time flexibility;
SMD would impose additional costs for these changes• Obligations (vs. options) impose financial risks because
hydro is energy-constrained• BPA cannot voluntarily implement an SMD proposal until
examination of its elements is complete and we are confident that the PNW is not worse off under such a proposal
5 February 2003 29
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(A.6) Spill Test at Libby
and VarQby
Bill Branch and Cindy Henriksen
5 February 2003 30
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Test Spill at Libby
USFWS 2000 Biological Opinion calls for increased release capacity, 10,000 cfs more at LibbyThe test was designed to measure Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) downstream, channel capacity, and effects on fishThe test was designed to spill up to 15,000 cfs if Montana water quality standards for TDG were not exceededSpill test scheduled for June 25 – 27Test began and flood control operation overtook operationJune 25Spill was as great as 15 kcfs on July 2First significant spill since 1981
5 February 2003 31
ColumbiaRiverTreaty VARQ Definition
VARQ is a system flood control operationSystem flood control is not significantly diminished• Libby and Hungry Horse reservoirs are more full at
the start of the freshet• Grand Coulee is drafted more deeply
Libby and Hungry Horse are more full at the start of the refill period and can release variable outflow greater than minimum flow during the freshet (rather than releasing minimum flow under current flood control strategies)
5 February 2003 32
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
VARQ Process to Date
Both USFWS and NMFS called for implementation of VARQ by January 1, 2002VARQ flood control is the proposed operation in the Upper Columbia Environmental Assessment performed by Seattle District Corps, in cooperation with BPA and ReclamationDraft EA opened for 30 day public comments period November 14, 2002Colonel Graves signed a FONSI December 31, 2002General Fastabend signed a decision to implement VARQ December 31, 2002EIS is underway, completion planned in 2004
5 February 2003 33
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(B.1)Principles and
Procedures Revisionby
Ken Spafford and Tony White
5 Feb 03
5 February 2003 34
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Principles & Procedures (POP)
Operating Committee direction to revise POP in July 2001Proposed changes are philosophical (what to address), structural (order, outline), and technical (changes since 1991)Goal is to describe what is, and how results were obtained, rather than prescribing for the futureIntent is to generate a document approved by Entity Agreement, document changes in appendices to AOP’s, DOP’sIssue a revised POP whenever a significant change, or accumulation of smaller changes, warrantsOne-month cancellation clause for either party who feels the POP is no longer applicable/relevantExpected publication by February 2003
5 February 2003 35
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(B.2)
EmergingBurbot Issues
ByCindy Henriksen
5 February 2003 36
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Emerging Burbot Issues
Burbot were proposed for listing under ESA in 2000USFWS has not taken action since that dateIdaho conservation League has sued USFWS to proceedUSFWS has until March 1, 2003 for resolution with plaintiffsThe Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) is leading in development of a Conservation Agreement (CA) for burbot
5 February 2003 37
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Emerging Burbot Issue (cont.)
The CA is designed to be a legally binding agreement to preclude listingAll effected stakeholders are to be signatories to the CA, including Canadian interestThe KVRI and Burbot subcommittees continue to meet• Habitat• Aquaculture• Hydro• Participants include Corps, BPA, BC Hydro, DFO
5 February 2003 38
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(B.3)
Flood Control Split and Request
ByBill Branch
5 February 2003 39
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Flood Control Split Request
All AOPs and DOPs had been developed with 5.1 Maf flood control at Arrow and 2.1 at MicaBC Hydro requested operation to the 3.6 Maf at Arrow and 4.08 Maf at Mica on 27 November 2001This was agreed on 22 February 2002 for operating year 2001-2002 and initiatedBC Hydro requested 3.6 Maf Arrow and 4.08 Maf Mica on 25 June 2002 for operation in 2002-2003US agreed on 7 November 2002Principles for implementation in the TSR were distributed November 2002
5 February 2003 40
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(B.5)
AOP and DOP Status
ByJohn Hyde and Tom Siu
5 February 2003 41
ColumbiaRiverTreaty
Update on AOP and DOP Status
AOP/DDPB• Objective is to return to Treaty schedule by simultaneous
preparation of 07, 08, and 09 AOP/DDPB’s• Using Streamline Method for loads & resources for all three
AOP/DDPB’s• Full set of hydroregulation Step I/II/III studies for 08AOP/DDPB.• Use Streamline Method for 07 & 09AOP operating criteria• Normal Step II/III critical period studies for 07 & 09 DDPB
Capacity Entitlement calculation• Use Streamline Method for 07 & 09DDBP Energy Entitlement
calculation• Expect completion of studies by July 2003
DOP• Considering use of 06AOP operating criteria for 04DOP. Will
decide in within few weeks.
5 February 2003 42
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(B.6)
BiOp Related Activities
ByCindy Henriksen and Rick Pendergrass
5 February 2003 43
ColumbiaRiverTreaty BiOp Related Activities
NOAA Fisheries is preparing the 2003 Findings LetterCanadian issues include:• RPA 24: request and negotiate agreements for
Storage of 1 MAF U.S. flow augmentation in Arrow.• RPA 25: request and negotiate agreements for
spring storage and summer release of non-Treaty storage.
• RPA 26: request and negotiate agreements for additional release of Canadian storage during July and August - Entities received a report from CRTOC March 16, 2001.
USFWS Proposed Action – Implement VarQ at Libby consistent with NEPA and Canadian coordination.
5 February 2003 44
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(C.1)
HydrometCommittee
Update
ByEric Weiss
5 February 2003 45
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Hydromet Committee Update
Activities since last PEBCOM meeting• 2002 Annual Report issued• Liaison with data collection agencies continues
– Environment Canada policies under review
• Flood control / TSR / AER forecasting support – Water supply forecasting methods under review
• ESP• Libby
– TSR / AER data submittals for Canadian Treaty projects being vetted by Canadian Section
– Data submittal procedures in POP under review
5 February 2003 46
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(C.2)
Non-Treaty Storage Agreement Update
ByKelvin, Tony, & Pam
5 February 2003 47
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Non-Treaty Storage
Two agreements, BPA-BCH NTS Agreement and BPA-Mid-C Agreement, both scheduled to expire 30 Jun 03BPA-BCH NTS Agreement extended one year to permit BC Water Use Plan to inform negotiations, now scheduled to expire 30 Jun 04Mid-C’s offered same 1-year extension, only Eugene has accepted so far, others to decide as expiration date approachesBest guess – some other Mid-C’s will extend 1 year, unlikely to enter into longer-term new NTS
5 February 2003 48
ColumbiaRiverTreaty Columbia River TreatyColumbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
Agenda Item VI(C.3)
Columbia Water Use Plan Update
ByAllan Woo
5 February 2003 49
ColumbiaRiverTreaty WUP Guidelines - 13 Step Process
Steps 1-3 Initiate, scope Issues, and develop process
Steps 4-5• Define objectives and gather additional information
Steps 6-7• Create operating alternatives and assess tradeoffs
Steps 8-9• Document and submit draft WUP to Comptroller
Steps 10-12• Comptroller/DFO Review and decision
Steps 12-13 • Monitor compliance and implement periodic review