April 2006 1
Columbia River
Treaty
Overview of Columbia River Treaty
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty
April 2006 2
Columbia River
Treaty
Topics
• Treaty Background and Projects
• Treaty Organization
• Treaty Provisions
• Treaty Studies and Operations
• Non-Treaty Storage
April 2006 3
Columbia River
TreatyWhy do we have a Treaty?
About 1/3 of the ColumbiaRiver water comes from Canada.
• Canada has 15% of the basin area, but produces, on average, 38% of the runoff for the total basin.
• 50% of the worst Columbia flood flows (1894) at Portland camefrom Canada.
• northern basins (Mica & Revelstoke) have highest and most consistent runoff
• runoff in southern basins is lower and more uncertain
April 2006 4
Columbia River
Treaty
• Damaged homes, farms, and dykes from BC (e.g. Trail) all the way to Astoria, OR
• 1948 flood destroyed Vanport, Oregon, a city of ~ 35,000.
• About 50-60 people were killed.
1948 Columbia River Flood1948 Columbia River Flood
Vanport, ORin 1948
Trail, B.C. in 1948 4
April 2006 5
Columbia River
TreatyColumbia is the most powerful Columbia is the most powerful river in North Americariver in North America
• Hydropower capability is measured by river flow multiplied by the head (or, change in elevation).
• St. Lawrence, Mississippi, and Mackenzie rivers have more flow, but less head.
• Grand Coulee has about twice the head of Niagara Falls.
Niagara Falls & Powerhouses
Grand Coulee
5
Grand Coulee Powerhouse & Spillway
April 2006 6
Columbia River
TreatyYear to Year Variation in FlowYear to Year Variation in FlowAbout +/- 50% of AverageAbout +/- 50% of Average
Year to year variations are almost random, and 95% confidence error for January forecast = +/- 25%
Columbia River at The Dalles, OregonAnnual Jan-July runoff volumes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Jan
-Ju
ly r
un
off
vo
lum
e (
% o
f n
orm
al)
April 2006 7
Columbia River
TreatyWhat does the Treaty Do?
• The Treaty required Canada to:
• construct the Mica, Arrow, and Duncan storage reservoirs on the Columbia River system,
• operate these reservoirs for optimum power generation and flood control downstream in both countries
• The Treaty required the U.S. to:
• pay Canada 50% of the estimated value of the future flood control benefits
• deliver to Canada 50% of the increased power generated downstream at U.S. plants
• The Treaty allowed the U.S. to:
• construct and operate the Libby project on the Kootenai River in Montana
Columbia River
Treaty
Jan.1961
April 2006 8
Columbia River
Treaty
Treaty Term
The Treaty has no specified end date. However, either government has the option to terminate the Treaty after 60 years (2024) with 10 years’ advance notice. Upon termination:
• Mica, Arrow, Duncan, and Libby may continue to operate subject to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty
• Canada must provide “on-call” flood protection for the U.S. as long as the projects exist … but U.S. must pay Canada’s operating costs and power losses
• Canada may continue any Kootenay River diversions (although no diversions have been undertaken so far)
April 2006 9
Columbia River
Treaty
Duncan and Arrow
Treaty Non-Treaty Generator DamCompleted ___ _Storage Storage Capacity Height
DUNCAN 1967 1,730 km³ (1.4 Maf) None None 40 m (130 ft)ARROW 1968 8,760 km³ (7.1 Maf) .31 km³(.25 Maf) 170 MW 52 m (170 ft)
Duncan
Lake & Dam
Arrow Lakes
Keenleyside Dam
April 2006 10
Columbia River
Treaty
Mica and Libby
Treaty Non-Treaty Generator Dam Completed ___Storage Storage Capacity __ _Height____ MICA 1973 8.63 km³(7.0 Maf) 6.17 km³(5.0 Maf) 1740 MW 198 m (650 ft) LIBBY 1973 6.14 km³(5.0 Maf) None 604 MW 113 m ( 370 ft)
Libby
Mica
KoocanusaReservoir
Kinbasket Reservoir
April 2006 11
Columbia River
TreatyColumbia River Treaty Organization
CANADIAN GOVERNMENTMinistry of Foreign Affairs & Trade
Ministry Natural Resources
BRITISH COLUMBIAGOVERNMENT
UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT
Department of StateDepartment of the ArmyDepartment of Energy
TREATY& Protocol
PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD*
CANADIAN UNITED STATES
PEB ENGINEERING COMMITTEE***
CANADIAN UNITED STATES
CANADIANENTITY
*
CANADIANCOORDINATOR
&SECRETARY
**
United StatesENTITY
*
United StatesCOORDINATOR
&SECRETARY
**
OPERATING COMMITTEE**
CANADIAN UNITED STATES
HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE**
CANADIAN UNITED STATES
U.S. Entity• Corps of Engineers• BPA
Canadian Entities• BC Hydro• BC Provincial Government
CANADIAN ENTITY
for Art.XIV2j*
* created by Treaty or governments, ** created by Entities, *** created by PEB
April 2006 12
Columbia River
TreatyTreaty Provisions for Flood Control
• 10.4 km³ (8.4 Maf) of storage at Arrow, Duncan, and Mica is assured for flood control operation until 2024.
• Other Canadian storage [8.7 km³ (7 Maf) of Treaty storage & 6.2 km³ (5 Maf) of non-Treaty storage] is available “on call” for large floods at a cost.
• Cash payment (US$ 64 million) was made from U.S. to Canada at the completion of the three Canadian projects for 50% of the estimated value of future flood damages prevented in the U.S. (to 2024).
• Corps has estimated that Treaty storage prevented over US$ 200 million of damages in each of the years 1972, 1974, and 1997
• Many Canadian and U.S. communities benefit from Treaty flood control
• After 2024, the U.S. has access only to “on-call” storage.
Portland levelsBank full = 16’, Major flood = 26’
UnReg. Reg.1997= 28.4’ 19’ 1996= 29’ 27.2’1974= 30.6’ 21.1’
1972= 31.5’ 21.5‘1964= 32.5’ 27.7’
1948= 31’ 31’ 1894= 35.6’ 35.6’
April 2006 13
Columbia River
Treaty
Flood Control Benefits in Canada
Columbia River at Birchbank (River flow gauge located between Castlegar and Trail)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Hydrographs: Observed and pre-project flows for the year ending September 30, 1997
Dis
ch
arg
e (
10
00
cu
bic
fe
et
pe
r s
ec
on
d)
Pre-project flow Observed flow
<===== start of localized flood damage (170 kcfs)
<===== start of minor regional flood damage (225 kcfs)
<===== start of major regional flood damage (280 kcfs)
April 2006 14
Columbia River
TreatyPeak Kootenay Lake levelsbefore and after Treaty storage
Kootenay Lake (at Queens Bay) annual maximum lake levels
1761.951961
1744
1746
1748
1750
1752
1754
1756
1758
1760
1762
1764
1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Year
Sta
ge
(fe
et)
April 2006 15
Columbia River
TreatyTreaty Provisions for Hydropower
• 19.1 km³ (15.5 Maf) of Canadian storage is operated for optimum power generation in Canada and the U.S.
• Canada receives 50% of the increase in power generation capability at U.S. plants due to the operation of Canadian Treaty storage.
• Canada is required to operate Treaty projects according to specified monthly operating plans. However, Canada has flexibility to operate individual projects for maximum Canadian benefit as long as the overall Canadian storage operation meets Treaty targets.
• Downstream power and flood control benefits resulting from Libby storage operation belong to the country where they occur, i.e., Canadian benefits stay in Canada.
• Treaty made other power projects in Canada & U.S. feasible: e.g. Revelstoke, Arrow Lakes Hydro, Kootenay Canal, Wells, & additional powerhouses at Grand Coulee and Bonneville
April 2006 16
Columbia River
Treaty
Types of Treaty studies
Assured Operating Plan (AOP)
• done 6 years in advance (“planning” time horizon) … allows time for construction of new resources
• downstream benefits calculated from AOP Detailed Operating Plan (DOP)
• done just prior to the operating year … revises &/or confirms the operating rules that were agreed on in the AOP … only by mutual agreement
Treaty Storage Regulation (TSR)
• implements the DOP rules within the current operating year based on the actual & forecast runoff for each Columbia River project
April 2006 17
Columbia River
Treaty
Assured Operating Plans
• The Treaty requires that an Assured Operating Plan (AOP) for Canadian
Treaty storage be developed annually for the 6th succeeding year with
the goal of achieving optimum power benefits and specified flood
protection in Canada and the U.S.
• Optimum operating rules are judged based on the amount of firm and
non-firm energy & capacity produced by using the rules
• Non-power requirements (e.g. fish and recreation) cannot be included in
the AOP hydro-regulation studies.
• Once the AOP document is signed by both countries, it becomes the
“default” (assured) plan
• The AOP is then reviewed by the Permanent Engineering Board (PEB),
who determine if the plan meets the objectives of the Treaty and then
report back to the governments of Canada & the U.S.
April 2006 18
Columbia River
Treaty
Downstream Power Benefits
• Downstream Power Benefits (DSBs) are based on the AOP simulation studies, NOT on actual storage and power operations
• The Canadian Entitlement is 50% of the increase in energy & capacity downstream in the U.S. after adding Canadian Treaty storage.
• Canadian Treaty storage has “first-added” rights ahead of benefits from other U.S. storage projects built since the Columbia Treaty
• Canadian Entitlement deliveries are not affected or adjusted to reflect actual power benefits. (The U.S. can choose to use the resulting water for fish or ?, but the energy deliveries to Canada remain the same.)
As of 1 April 2003, the 30-year sale of power benefits was completed, and all of the Canadian Entitlement energy and capacity now returns to the BC border
15
April 2006 19
Columbia River
Treaty
DSBs now return to Canada
The Province of BC owns the Canadian Entitlement to DSBs Approximate value ~ C$ 300 million per year Powerex is the Province’s agent to sell the energy, either to BCH or to
other customers BC Hydro remains the Canadian Entity for Entitlement deliveries and
disputes – most disputes are related to firm transmission capacity to the U.S.-Canada border (e.g. PSANI)
Typically, Powerex schedules Entitlement deliveries in the highest-value times:• Maximum capacity in most heavy-load hours• No deliveries in most light-load hours
For 2005-06, energy deliveries can peak at 1195 MW and must average 535 MW each month (45% load factor)
15
April 2006 20
Columbia River
TreatyTreaty Allows Mutually Beneficial Operating Agreements
• Treaty allows the Entities to develop and implement Detailed Operating Plans (DOP) that produce results more advantageous to both countries than the AOPs that were prepared in accordance with only power and flood control objectives.
• Entities have interpreted “more advantageous” to include fisheries, recreation, and other benefits.
• Examples:• DOP (annual)
• Libby Coordination Agreement (multi-year)
• Supplemental Operating Agreements (annual)
April 2006 21
Columbia River
Treaty
Detailed Operating Plan
DOP prepared each year for the following operating year: Aug-July
DOP must be accepted by agreement (or else we stay with the AOP)
DOP may include fisheries and other benefits (in addition to power and flood control) if agreed to by both countries -- must be mutual benefits
April 2006 22
Columbia River
Treaty
Treaty Storage Regulations
TSR = Treaty Storage Regulation implements the rules of the DOP within the
current operating year
• uses the 6 rule curves with priority on flood control, firm power, refill, secondary power
uses actual inflows to date plus forecast inflows to the end of the operating year
models the entire Columbia River basinmay allow proportional draft of Treaty storage
April 2006 23
Columbia River
Treaty
Actual operations
TSR study (monthly storage targets) provides the starting point (rights & obligations) for all operations of Treaty projects
U.S. & Canada can agree to deviate from the TSR study, typically using supplemental agreements
Weekly conference call (Thursday 11 am) with U.S. and FortisBC to discuss the Treaty flow request for the following week (starts Saturday 8 am)
Treaty flow agreement is finalized by Friday Noon Within-week flow shaping needs are accommodated
whenever possible
April 2006 24
Columbia River
Treaty
Actual operations (2)
Canada has rights to flexibility within Canada, i.e. transferring water between Mica, Revelstoke, Arrow, and Duncan reservoirs. Examples of this:
• running Mica/Rev more or less than that required by the TSR study (no Arrow discharge adjustment)
• running Duncan more or less than the TSR requirement (Arrow discharges must be adjusted in this case)
Non-Treaty activity is “superimposed on top of” Treaty activity for Mica, Rev, and Arrow
April 2006 25
Columbia River
Treaty
Arrow Actual and Treaty Contents1 August 2010 through 31 July 2011
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
8/1
8/1
5
8/2
9
9/1
2
9/2
6
10/1
0
10/2
4
11/7
11/2
1
12/5
12/1
9
1/2
1/1
6
1/3
0
2/1
3
2/2
7
3/1
3
3/2
7
4/1
0
4/2
4
5/8
5/2
2
6/5
6/1
9
7/3
7/1
7
7/3
1
Date
Co
nte
nt
(ksfd
)
Actual Content
Treaty Content
Actual vs Treaty Operation - FlexMica Actual and Treaty Discharge1 August 2010 through 31 July 2011
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
8/1
8/1
5
8/2
9
9/1
2
9/2
6
10/1
0
10/2
4
11/7
11/2
1
12/5
12/1
9
1/2
1/1
6
1/3
0
2/1
3
2/2
7
3/1
3
3/2
7
4/1
0
4/2
4
5/8
5/2
2
6/5
6/1
9
7/3
7/1
7
7/3
1
Date
Ou
tflo
w (
kcfs
)Actual Outf low s
Treaty Outf low s
April 2006 26
Columbia River
TreatyTypical Supplemental Operating Agreements
Since 1984, the annual Detailed Operating Plan has allowed supplemental operating agreements within each operating year as opportunities arise for mutual benefits.
Some examples:
• Nonpower Uses Agreement
• Libby/Canadian Treaty Storage Swap
• Summer Treaty Storage Agreement (July/01-Mar/02)
April 2006 27
Columbia River
Treaty
Non-Power Uses Agreement
adjusts Arrow outflows during Jan-Mar for whitefish spawning, and during April-June for trout spawning (Canadian fish benefit)
helps smooth the refill of Treaty reservoirs enables 1 Maf storage for salmon flow
augmentation and helps meet minimum fish flows at Vernita Bar (U.S. fish benefit)
April 2006 28
Columbia River
Treaty
Changes from TSR Operation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JULY AUG SEP
1999-00 Operating Year
Avera
ge M
on
thly
Flo
w i
n k
cfs
Actual Treaty
DOP TSR
Unregulated
1999-00 Canadian (Arrow + Duncan)Treaty Outflows in kcfs
Provisional Draft
Whitefish Reduction
Trout Spawning
Flow Augmentation
April 2006 29
Columbia River
TreatyNon-Treaty Storage Agreement
allows for coordination of additional storage in Canada that is not governed by the Treaty
designed as a bilateral agreement between BPA and BCH
has been used by both BPA and BCH since 1984 to provide additional flexibility for power and non-power benefits
BCH and BPA each have access to 1.5 MAF of storage
NTSA activity can affect reservoir levels and discharges at both Mica and Arrow due to Treaty flexibility
April 2006 30
Columbia River
Treaty
Benefits of NTS Agreements
Use of non-Treaty storage can provide both power and non-power benefits. Power benefits are created by:
• storing water when it has less economic value and releasing it when it has more economic value ($ gain)
• shaping water so that energy is produced from water that would otherwise be spilled ($ and MW gain)
In recent years, non-Treaty storage has become an important part of BPA’s ability to shape flows for fisheries, in addition to providing power benefits.
April 2006 31
Columbia River
Treaty
NTSA (cont.)
The most recent NTSA was executed on 10 April 2012 and will remain in effect until 15 September 2024
This agreement also provides BPA firm rights to water to support ESA-listed fish in the lowest 20th percentile of water years
BC Hydro has firm release rights for power planning purposes in their lowest water conditions
The NTSA provides additional flow shaping capability within the year and between years for both fish and power.
April 2006 32
Columbia River
Treaty
Questions?
Columbia River TreatyColumbia River Treaty