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


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


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


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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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)

-


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)

-


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


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


Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)

10% Average 90%

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


2467 feet

2369 feet

2336 feet

2320.0

2340.0

2360.0

2380.0

2400.0

2420.0

2440.0

2460.0

2480.0


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


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


Ele

vati

on

(F

eet)

10% Average 90%



1413 feet

1437 feet

1403 feet

1380.0

1390.0

1400.0

1410.0

1420.0

1430.0

1440.0

1450.0


Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)

10% Average 90%

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



1407 feet

1437 feet

1397 feet

1380.0

1390.0

1400.0

1410.0

1420.0

1430.0

1440.0

1450.0


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


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


Acc

ou

nt

Dra

ft (

ksfd

)


Arrow Releases

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000


Re

lea

se

fo

r A

rro

w (

cfs

)


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

Documents

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