1 / 13

The Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty. John Shurts General Counsel Northwest Power and Conservation Council Portland, Oregon Northwest Hydroelectric Association February 2013. Columbia River Treaty. 15 maf of storage in Canada (Mica, Duncan, Keenleyside/Arrow)

raja
Download Presentation

The Columbia River Treaty

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Columbia River Treaty John Shurts General Counsel Northwest Power and Conservation Council Portland, Oregon Northwest Hydroelectric Association February 2013

  2. Columbia River Treaty 15 maf of storage in Canada (Mica, Duncan, Keenleyside/Arrow) For flood control and to optimize generation Sharing of downstream benefits – incl. Canadian Entitlement to ½ of downstream power benefits

  3. Columbia River Treaty (cont’d) • Entities designated to implement Treaty are BC Hydro (BC); Bonneville Admin and Corps Div Comm (US) • US authorized to build Libby Dam on Kootenai River • no sharing of benefits • operations coordinated

  4. Canadian Outflows for Power and Flood Control on Planning Basis

  5. Columbia River Treaty (cont’d) Treaty made additional generators in US economically feasible (e.g., Bonneville 2nd Powerhouse; Grand Coulee 3rd) – part of Treaty assumptions Treaty and N/S Intertie Treaty assumptions about power system future? Not so accurate

  6. Columbia River Treaty (cont’d) BC Hydro has substantial generation at Mica (Treaty) and Revelstoke (non-Treaty); small amount of generation at Arrow – not part of Treaty; must be coordinated Arrow (and Libby) take the brunt of formal flood control

  7. Why the 2014/2024 Columbia Treaty Review?(a) Flood control changes in 2024 Assured systematic flood control operations last only 60 years ( to 2024) • thereafter flood control will be provided at Treaty reservoirs in Canada only when “called upon” • conditioned on effective use of US storage first and on compensation for economic losses

  8. Why the 2014/2024 Review:(b) Termination Provision/Power Either nation may unilaterally terminate the Treaty after 60 years (2024) • Either party must give at least 10 years notice (hence, 2014 as target for analysis) • Treaty continues indefinitely unless terminated • Termination will not affect Libby nor the obligation to provide the called upon flood control operations • So in essence, coordinated power operation is what is subject to termination

  9. Columbia River Treaty and salmon/ecosystem considerations? • Ecosystem functions and salmon and other fish and wildlife needs: Integrated into the domestic law and policy governing river management on both sides of the border after 1960, but notformally part of the Treaty (altho see supplemental agreements)

  10. 2014/2024 Review: Regional Engagement Plan in the United States • Sovereign Review Team: • United States agencies: (BPA, USACE, NMFS, USFWS, • BOR, BLM, EPA, USFS, USGS, BIA, NPS) • States: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana • Northwest Indian Tribes: 5 representatives (USRT, CRITFC, • UCUT, Cowlitz, CSKT) • Northwest Stakeholders: • Regional Listening Sessions • Listening sessions directly between the SRT and regional stakeholders and technical experts • Public engagement?

More Related