BC Hydro 2005 Integrated Electricity Plan Victoria Regional Workshop Final Meeting Notes

Transcription

1 Workshop Date and Location February 25, 2005 Holiday Inn, Topaz Room 3020 Blanshard Street, Victoria Attendees and Interests Name Bill Jackson Bruce McIldoon Michael D Antoni George O Briain Jake McAstocker John Newcomb Guy Dauncey Matt Schuett Judy Brownoff Tom Hackney Affiliation/Interest Building Maintenance Operations, City of Victoria Councilor, Esquimalt Ministry of Energy & Mines Councilor, Sooke University of Victoria geography student Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Provincial IEP Committee member, University of Victoria Geography professor BC SEA BC Hydro / IEP Representatives University of Victoria - student Councilor, Saanich; Director Capital Regional District; Environment Round Table Vice-Chair GSX CCC, Sierra Club BC Chapter Name Organization & Department Role Ted Olynyk BC Hydro, Community Relations Host Brenda Goehring BC Hydro, Power Planning & Portfolio Management Presenter Anne Cochran Consultant Facilitator Lesley Wood BCTC, Community Relations Transmission representative Samantha Petticrew Consultant Technical Resource Options Support Lexa Hobenshield BC Hydro, Community Relations Communications, Note Taker Steve Watson BC Hydro, Community Relations Host Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 1 of 10

2 Discussion Highlights Key discussion points during the workshop: Focus on sustainability. Concern about Greenhouse Gases (climate change) and for the environment. Investment in research and development of sustainable resource options. Resource options attributes. Inadequate and need refinement. Specific concern with impacted land area for wind. Regulatory Framework. Concerns about regulatory framework within which BC Hydro pursues its goals. Suggestion that BC Hydro measure long term goals against regulatory and provincial policy perspectives. Conservation. Focus on demand-side management and end use of energy (reducing consumption). Suggestion that BC Hydro raise awareness about Power Smart / conservation, and amount of energy use. Continue to broaden scope of Power Smart with energy retrofits integrated with Community Energy Plans. Focus on price stability (versus low cost). Maximize potential of existing resources. Support for large hydro as an existing heritage opportunity to be maximized. Complementary resource options. Interest in promoting exploration of complementary resource options (for example, combine large hydro with wind). Number of projects. No preference: pursue the number of projects required to meet demand. 1. Introductions / Workshop Overview 1.1. Welcome and Introductions On behalf of BC Hydro, Ted Olynyk welcomed everyone to the Victoria regional workshop, indicating that this was the third and final workshop on Vancouver Island during this round of meetings. He emphasized the importance of participants input to help BC Hydro meet the future needs of its customers. Ted introduced the IEP team, including Anne Cochran as the facilitator for the day. Anne requested that workshop participants introduce themselves and provide a brief summary of their interest in the IEP workshop: Matt Schuett (University of Victoria): Matt is new to Integrated Energy Systems, is a university student, and is interested in electricity planning related to his work in developing sustainable energy solutions. Guy Dauncey (Consultant and Author): Guy s main interest is in the effects of energy choices on climate change and developing sustainable energy to meet baseline demand. Bruce Mclldoon (Esquimalt): Bruce is Interested in hydroelectric generation, including small hydro and natural gas generation. Bill Jackson (City of Victoria): Bill has past involvement with BC Hydro through Power Smart programs. The amount of money the City has saved has been phenomenal. He is interested in the practical application of Power Smart. Michael D Antoni (Ministry of Energy and Mines): Michael is observing today s process. Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 2 of 10

3 Judy Brownoff (Saanich): Judy is wearing two hats today: one representing Saanich and the other representing the Capital Regional District (CRD). She is Interested in getting energy consumption under control through building retrofits. She is involved in an energy audit for Saanich, and an upcoming $1 million in retrofits; and is involved with community energy planning through the CRD. Judy is also interested in learning how the IEP fits with the plans of the CRD. George O Brien (District of Sooke): George is interested in sustainable energy options and returning Columbia downstream benefits to B.C. John Newcomb (Geography Instructor University of Victoria, Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Provincial IEP Committee member): John has past environmental group involvement. He wants to understand how changing the energy policy will impact Victoria, including its business community. Jake McAstocker (Geography student): John is interested in wind energy. Tom Hackney (GSX CCC and Sierra Club BC Chapter): Tom is interested in sustainable energy and is concerned that the climate change component of fossil fuel consumption for energy planning is not factored into the evaluation of the IEP. We as a society should be more focused on energy conservation. We should be looking at BC Hydro and beyond to the direction given to BC Hydro by government. 2. Workshop Overview Anne provided a brief summary of the workshop objectives and purpose. The agenda for the day was introduced and reviewed. The following is a summary of the points of clarification and discussion that took place during the workshop overview: BCUC filing process. There was clarification about the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) filing process of the IEP and associated documents. The 2005 Resource Expenditure and Acquisition Plan (REAP) will be filed with the BCUC later this spring: BC Hydro will seek the BCUC s approval of the REAP (four year plan). It will outline next steps and near term acquisitions BC Hydro wants to explore. The REAP will be filed annually and feeds into BC Hydro s budgeting process. One of the outcomes of the REAP may be calls for energy. First Nations engagement and engagement next steps. It was explained that while First Nations have their own engagement stream to incorporate specific First Nations interests, they are encouraged to participate in all engagement streams. First Nations and Stakeholder engagement will continue into the fall, and will include a second round of regional workshops in similar locations. Feedback obtained will feed into the IEP Action Plan that BC Hydro will develop as part of the IEP. Provincial IEP Committee (PIEPC) process. PIEPC members applied and were selected to sit on the PIEPC. The intense PIEPC process mirrors the process that we undertake in the IEP workshops but includes more technical detail and discussion. Participants will meet approximately six times for two days each time over about eight months. Representatives include First Nations reps, BC Hydro reps, and reps from JIESC (represents our large industrial customers), BC Business Council, B.C. sustainable energy, a student, etc. Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 3 of 10

4 Resource options info sheet units. It was explained that the units indicated on the Resource Options info sheet were sample resource options bundles simplified for comparison purposes only. The units do not represent MW or MWh. Challenge of long term planning in a political environment. A participant raised the concern that BC Hydro is led by a Board of Directors that is appointed by the provincial government and the provincial government could change every four years. Given that a new government may have different priorities from its predecessor, it is difficult to undertake long term electricity planning. BC Hydro responded that with this long term plan, BC Hydro is trying to develop a path that will be sustainable through political and policy changes and is trying to set long-term goals that will stand the test of time. Technology change and IEP updates. It was pointed out that BC Hydro plans to complete an IEP every two years to keep pace with changing resource options, emerging technologies, and public energy preferences. Cogeneration opportunities on Vancouver Island. It was clarified that future cogeneration opportunities depend on opportunities identified by industries such as mills, with support from BC Hydro. The IEP team pointed out that there are existing cogeneration facilities on Vancouver Island. A participant indicated that in principle cogeneration is a good idea; however, natural gas is needed and thus needs to be imported to make cogeneration successful Update on 2004 IEP / Overview of 2005 IEP, Review Resource Options and Attributes Brenda Goehring provided an update of the 2004 IEP and an overview of the 2005 process including the purpose, process, public information sessions, regional workshops, First Nations sessions, provincial committee, and other activities. She then reviewed the Resource Options and Attributes with attendees. 2.2 Questions and Discussion The following is a summary of the points of clarification and discussion that took place during the presentation: Vancouver Island demand. Regarding the peak usage charts, it was clarified that the lower chart represents residential usage on a daily average and the upper chart represents industrial usage over a monthly average. Vancouver Island s morning peak is higher than the rest of the province because typically homes on the Island are heated by electric baseboard heating more frequently than in other areas of the province. Another reason is large base-load industrial customers. Community Planning. A participant suggested that BC Hydro build in resources and infrastructure for growth in demand. Resource option additions. A participant suggested that the following resource options need to be added to the list: i Solar hot water. Water use can be 30 per cent of a household s energy consumption, so this option could fit under the demand-side management category. Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 4 of 10

5 ii Ground/ocean source heating. The payback can be short: 10 to 15 years. He further added that these ideas should be incorporated into the provincial building code. Comment: Another participant added that he supports exploring different resource options, but suggested that it can t be assumed that things will work the way they re supposed to; one must be sure to explore the theoretical constructs and experiences under extenuating conditions. Feedback for provincial government on energy policy. A participant expressed concern about energy policy direction provided by the provincial government to BC Hydro. The IEP team suggested that the participant might want to discuss this concern with the Energy and Mines representative in attendance or to talk to their MLA. Resource attribute CO. A participant suggested that carbon monoxide be moved into the local air emissions category from the GHG category. Consequence table assumptions. A participant had four comments regarding the numbers in the consequence table: i Fuel price. The price of fuel should be projected as an average over the life of the facility. The suggested fuel price for natural gas is low (should be closer to nine cents). ii It was clarified that geothermal GHG emissions include sulfur dioxide emissions from hot spring sources. Post workshop note (from the 2004 IEP): A typical flash steam plant emits small amounts of sulfur, nitrous oxides and less than 250 kg of carbon dioxide per MW per day. Emissions of sulfur and nitrous oxides are assumed to be zero. The actual amounts will vary depending on the geothermal resource. iii Based on a recent report by the world commission of dams, some hydroelectric facilities (depending on geography: flat agricultural inundated terrain = higher emissions) emit substantially more methane than previously thought. This new information needs to be considered in GHG emissions attributes for large hydro. iv 4000 hectares of impacted land for wind generation seems high. Wind turbines do not cover this entire area. The IEP team clarified that this is the permitted area, but this will need to be confirmed. The participant argues that this is a shared use area, so the footprint doesn t need to be so large and will bias the results. Post workshop note: To clarify, 4000 hectares includes the total permitted area that includes road, turbines distribution lines to collector substations, and any land clearing. It is recognized that much of the permitted land area is not impacted which is a topic under discussion as part of the technical resource options engagement for the Resource Options Report. Imports. It was clarified that imports are not considered a resource option, but are considered at the portfolio level. A participant suggested that imports should be graphically represented for the purposes of this workshop. GHG monetary value. It was clarified that potential monetary liability for GHG emissions is addressed at the portfolio level. A participant suggested that there needs to be a column for GHG liability as the world-wide consequences of GHG are severe and all fossil fuel resource options should have this applied in the cost. Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 5 of 10

6 Downstream and upstream GHG emissions. It was clarified that the PIEPC is looking at the pros and cons and practicality of including upstream and downstream impacts. In some cases good data exists and in other cases it doesn t which makes it difficult to evaluate consistently across resource options. Updating data with changing technology. It was clarified that although the IEP is a 20- year plan, the plan will be reviewed regularly (including with First Nations and stakeholders) every two years to ensure updated technology and changing values are factored in. Biomass GHG emissions. Biomass is allotted zero GHG emissions because it is assumed to be incinerated and is an improvement over existing beehive burners as a method of disposal. Post workshop note (from the 2004 IEP): Use of biomass fuel does not contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions because the full life cycle of the plant results in a net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. Biomass projects using wood from sawmills generally improve local air quality versus the uncontrolled burning of wood waste in beehive burners and results in a net environmental benefit. Permanent jobs associated with cogeneration. Cogeneration is assigned zero permanent jobs because it is assumed to be part of an industry that already has employees and no new employees would be added (there may be shifting, but no new employment). One participant disagreed with this assessment. Permanent jobs associated with Power Smart. Power Smart is allotted zero jobs because it is considered re-spending. There is no accurate estimation of the number of jobs that Power Smart would solely create. Participants suggested the Conservation Association of America may have appropriate data. The participant expressed the opinion that there are a lot of jobs across Power Smart activities. Temporary jobs associated with Biomass resource option. A participant suggested this number should be greater than zero. True cost of resource/delivery of power. A participant commented that it is difficult to know the true price of a resource/cost of delivery of power because the private sector needs confidentiality to protect competitive advantage, and the allocation of price to BC Hydro s customers is not a true cost allocation (for example, residential sector rates are subsidized by other rate categories). Adjusted Unit Energy Cost (UEC) of wind. It was clarified that the adjusted UEC in the consequence table includes the capital cost of the project (which includes interconnection, operations, maintenance, administration, and adjustments for dependable capacity and line losses.) A dependable capacity factor is added to the price for comparison purposes. Reliability. A participant commented that there is no attribute for reliability, which is an important factor. Question: What is the dollar premium added to non-firm resources (for example, wind) to firm it up for comparison purposes? Answer: There are different aspects of firming, some more difficult to quantify than others. In terms of the cost of capacity, a value of $50 per KW per year has been assumed Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 6 of 10

7 for the adjusted UEC. This value is based on the cost of a single cycle gas turbine (SCGT) and a new unit at Revelstoke. Firming is also sometimes used to reflect the system cost of shaping an intermittent resource like wind. This cost is difficult to quantify, but is likely in the order of $5 to $10 per MWh. Consequence table data validity. A participant raised the concern that the data may not be entirely valid. An IEP team member indicated that this is an opportunity to provide input to how the data should be refined, and that is what the purpose of the Technical Resource Options engagement is intended to confirm with the developer community. Wind dependable capacity factor. It was clarified that the wind dependable capacity factor increased from zero to 15 per cent with new information gathered. Low price. A participant indicated that he is interested in low price being added as a resource option. Generally, cost is important to customers as they make decisions about whether they should heat their home with electricity or natural gas. End use of product. A participant suggested that in order to determine a preference, he would need to consider what Hydro is trying to produce in the end? He would also need to know the efficiency factor and the means for producing it. 3. Introduction to Values Exercise and Discussion Anne Cochran introduced and provided an overview of the values exercises. The data in the consequence table is meant to be a platform for discussion and forum for discussions about data improvement. 3.1 Results of direct weights Highest ranked resource type. Power Smart was rated high or highest by most participants in this workshop. A participant commented that people leave their lights on because the price of electricity is too low. A suggestion was made that more effort needs to be made to encourage residential building contractors to endorse Power Smart principles, possibly with the help of and through municipal bylaws or building codes. BC Hydro should explore load shifting and demand-side management to lower the peak demand during the breakfast and dinner-time. Participants felt that we can get a lot out of Power Smart, so it is at the top of the list. Lowest ranked resource type. Most participants rated coal and natural gas the lowest. Reasons cited were that they are fossil fuel burning technologies, and natural gas has price instability. Price stability was an important factor to participants. Other reasons were that as fossil fuels they are non-renewable, GHG producing resource options. However, some believe coal can be cleanly burned and has a place in future options. Other comments and clarifications: Small hydro was seen as fairly environmentally benign and a good resource option. One participant was concerned about transmission line impacts of many small generation sites. There was some support for large hydro. Reasons cited were that it is a proven technology and a cost-competitive resource, and could be a large, reliable project, for example, Site C. Some participants were less supportive because of unknown GHG emissions. Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 7 of 10

8 There was support for wind as a complement to large hydro. Some supported wind as a stand alone resource, and some participants were very supportive of off-shore wind. A participant suggested that wind would work best in the prairies, and may not be ideal in BC. There is need for more information about geothermal as a resource type. Availability is unknown and its value questionable given that it can t be produced close to the end user in some cases. However, one participant indicated that a mix of geothermal heat with Power Smart would be a good combination of resources. There were mixed comments about biomass as a resource type. Some supported biomass (materials that have no net environmental impact), but others expressed a lack of support as there is environmental impact, and the full life cycle analysis is not available (for example, truck fuel from other sources). Rather than burn it in beehive burners though it is better to produce electricity. Participants were supportive of landfill methane generation. Imports should be included as a resource type. A participant expressed support for Columbia downstream benefits as a resource addition. Continued research and development is very important. Participants prefer to have the power generation close to the source of the demand. 3.2 Results of swing weighting Most important attributes: The most important attribute was emissions: GHG, followed by local air emissions and environment overall ranked high. One participant indicated that GHG emissions are twice as important as any other attribute. Another participant disagreed. Another top attribute was job creation with a particular focus on permanent jobs. Some felt low cost was important. Least important attributes: Number of projects was consistently not considered an important criterion for choosing a resource type. Impacted water and impacted land were also not valued as highly as other attributes. Other comments made about resource attributes: BC Hydro should provide appropriate price signals to encourage conservation. GHG liabilities should be added into the unit cost. Reliability should be added as an attribute to the criterion. One participant commented that if coal was a cleaner option, for example, a zero emission coal project, it would likely receive broader support because of its economic contribution and availability. Ensure upstream and downstream impacts are considered. Some participants expressed concern that BC Hydro has made assumptions about the data; in particular, one participant was very concerned about the land footprint (4000 hectares) Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 8 of 10

9 for wind. Other uses could take place under and around the turbines for example, such as farming. Offshore wind has no land footprint. More projects mean more jobs spread out over the island; this keeps people in the community. Need more projects to meet our needs. However, some felt the number of projects is not a big driver and that we should just build what is needed. There should be consideration for embodied impact, such as the concrete and limestone needed to build a dam for example. 3.3 Questions and Discussion The following is a summary of the points of clarification and discussion that occurred after the exercises: Smart growth. In addition to demand-side management, one participant stressed that society needs to think more about how goods are produced and consumed, including electricity. It is time to move away from being a society of consumers. Wish list for smart growth. What are people doing to conserve? How do we produce the power and how do we conserve it? Natural gas availability. The supply of natural gas is critical to the success of several of these resource options. This could be problematic in the future. Provincial government policy. Several participants commented that BC Hydro is constrained by the policy directions of the provincial government. They also pointed out that BC Hydro s load forecasting planning is dictated by the government s list of approved major capital projects. 4. BC Hydro s Regulatory Requirements and Planning Goals Brenda Goehring provided an overview of the regulatory context of the IEP and BC Hydro s new long-term goals. 4.1 Questions and Discussion The following is a summary of the questions and discussion during the regulatory requirements and goals presentation: Appropriate price signals. One participant suggested that the government s low cost criteria may not be in the public s best interests. Low electricity price is not a good incentive for conservation, therefore low cost may not be in the public s best interests. GHG liability. A comment was made that private producers must be accountable for GHG liability costs. Municipal rezoning challenges. Large projects may not get the required zoning for utility use. BCUC oversight. There were criticisms of how the BCUC evaluates projects and engages the public. Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 9 of 10

10 Conflict between goals. With respect to BC Hydro s long-term goals, one participant suggested some goals conflict with others. For example, no net environmental impact conflicts with business goals. The IEP team acknowledges that there may be conflicting goals. This participant suggested that appropriate rate incentives (for example, stepped rates) or stable electricity rates may be more appropriate goals and activities to address these conflicts. Global debate on what is in the public interest. It s not just cost. It was suggested that there needs to be fundamental change. Need price stability. Does not mean low cost. Natural gas emissions are too low. For example, does not include fine particulate. Export green energy. 5. Next Steps In closing, Brenda Goehring summarized the next steps, pointing out that the next round of regional input will take place in the fall of 2005 and that all results will be posted on the website. The following final comments and clarifications were provided: Next round of regional input. All participants expressed interest in participating in the next round of regional engagement (Fall 2005). Solar voltaic energy. The IEP team clarified that solar voltaic energy is a resource option included in BC Hydro s database. It was not, however, chosen to be included as a resource for discussion today. Imports as a resource option. A participant expressed the opinion that imports should be included in discussions of resource options and further suggested that while self sufficiency is an appropriate goal, we still need to be able to take advantage of the open market to import and export where it makes sense. He expressed the opinion that a solely public BC Hydro may not be in the public s best interests. Instead, a public/private mix should be considered. Exports to keep price low. One participant favoured exports to keep costs down, provided energy is generated in a sustainable way. BCUC public engagement. The BCUC needs to engage the public as BC Hydro is doing. Meeting held February 25, 2005 at Holiday Inn in Victoria Page 10 of 10