BC Hydro Provincial Integrated Electricity Planning Committee Meeting 5 (July 12-14, 2005) Information Sheet #5 Characterizing Environmental Attributes of Non-Firm Market Imports
Introduction
The portfolio analysis in the IEP simulates BC Hydro’s trade activities by modelling the spot market imports and exports. One of the Portfolios being evaluated for the 2005 IEP uses imports as a resource to replace 3000 GWh from Burrard. At the Provincial IEP Committee Meeting on June 1-2, a request was put forward from the Committee to explore the possibilities of characterizing the environmental attributes of net imports. Specifically, BC Hydro was asked to: (a) Provide air emission numbers (and land impacts if possible) of imports. (b) Determine whether GHG offsets were netted from reported volumes. (c) Provide any information on peak versus non-peak and heavy load versus light load impacts (i.e., do we have information on how emissions vary over time or by season?). (d) Answer questions about: resource mix, performance standards of different states, air emissions standards for each state; which states have GHG regulation. (e) Make a recommendation to the Committee with respect to whether/how imports will be characterized for the 2005 IEP.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(a) Provide air emission numbers (and land impacts if possible) of imports The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) provides emissions and resource mix information for all company, state, and power grid regions in the U.S. (includes the Western Electricity Coordinating Council - WECC). Emissions data are available for the years from 1996 to 2000. Emissions data includes CO2. Emissions from the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region for the year 2000 were reported as: annual CO2 = 338,417,272 tons. Dividing the annual C02 emissions by annual generation (338,417,272 CO2 tons/667,186,702 MWh) results in the GHG intensity discussed at the last PIEPC meeting of 500t/GWh. It is possible that the GHG emissions values could be further refined. For example, the Alberta intensity is suggested to be higher than the eGRID WECC average. In addition, the eGRID Northwest sub-region is suggested to have a lower GHG intensity than the eGRID WECC average due to it’s large hydro resource component. (b) Determine whether GHG offsets were netted from reported volumes.
BC Hydro 2005 IEP – PIEPC Meeting 5 – Characterizing Non-Firm Market Imports for Evaluation Page 1 of 4
The PIEPC was also interested in whether GHG offsets were netted from reported volumes. The concern was that with GHG emissions, if it is assumed that emissions are already being addressed through offset requirements (or will be addressed in the near term) by the generating jurisdiction, including GHG emissions in the 2005 IEP may be considered double counting impacts. A contact with the U.S. EPA confirmed that GHG offsets were not netted from reported volumes on the eGRID. (c) To provide any information on peak versus non-peak and heavy load versus light load impacts (i.e. do emissions vary over time or by season?). Generally, information is not available through the eGRID database on how emissions vary over time vis-à-vis BC Hydro’s net imports. (d) Provide information on the WECC Resource Mix, and performance standards for States
Resource Mix for WECC 2000 (Including B.C. and Alta.)
Coal 32.15% Gas 23.33% Nuclear 11.02% Oil and other fossil 1.05% Wind 0.57% Solar 0.1%
Hydro 28.24%
Coal 32.15%
Geothermal 2.06% Biomass 1.28% Hydro 28.24%
Nuclear 11.02%
Gas 23.33%
The resource mix for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) is shown in the figure above. This information was taken off eGRID and represents data from 2000. Resource mixes are available for each state, and were not included in this information sheet. Currently, the U.S. has no federal legislation regarding GHG emissions, and has rejected the Kyoto Protocol. However, activity is still occurring at both the federal and state levels to reduce emissions. A number of federal proposals are being considered, including the Bush Administrations proposal for a voluntary reduction of 18% carbon intensity.
BC Hydro 2005 IEP – PIEPC Meeting 5 – Characterizing Non-Firm Market Imports for Evaluation Page 2 of 4
In the absence of federal legislation, some States have developed their own policies. For example, in 1997 Oregon passed a law that new plants reduce CO2 emissions by 17% below their most efficient gas plant, or pay a ‘Climate Trust’. Washington passed a similar law in 2004. Some States have set renewable portfolio standards to reduce GHG emissions, rather than set emission rates or caps. In the WECC, renewable portfolio standards include: California (20% by 2017), Nevada (15% by 2013), Colorado (10% by 2015), New Mexico (10% by 2011), and Arizona (1.1% by 2007).1 In addition, U.S. power companies also consider GHG emissions impacts in their planning exercises in a manner similar to BC Hydro. For example, information is available in the PacificCorp, and Idaho Power Integrated Resource Planning documents (their websites are listed in the footnotes below) showing monetary values placed on local and GHG air emissions. The issue of double counting GHG emissions may become exacerbated over time as new power projects are developed in the U.S..
Greenhouse Gases – Recommendation
The IEP project team recommends using 500 t/GWh for the GHG emission intensity of imports for the 2005 IEP. This number represents the eGRID reported average for the year 2000.
Local Air and Land Impacts of Imports
(a) Provide air emission numbers (and land impacts if possible) of imports The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) provides local emissions data on NOx, SOx, and Hg. Emissions from the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region for the year 2000 were reported as: Annual S02 = 513,490 tons Annual N02 = 595,353 tons Annual Hg = 7,376 tons Generation = 667,186,702 MWh Information on annual emissions of these local air impacts is also available by state from the eGRID, and has not been included here. A key difficulty with considering a local air and land impact is that any information available is generic. There is no way of knowing, when electricity is imported, where local air impacts are being generated (downtown LA or an unpopulated area) or what type of land is impacted (agriculture versus pristine wilderness). The comparison is even more complicated for land impacts of imports, as imports are generated from existing facilities. At many generating facilities the land impact occurs when the plant is built and is not dependent on the generation produced.
1
Idaho Integrated Resource Plan http://www.idahopower.com/energycenter/2004irpfinal.htm BC Hydro 2005 IEP – PIEPC Meeting 5 – Characterizing Non-Firm Market Imports for Evaluation Page 3 of 4
Although it is realized there is a desire within PIEPC for information on local air and land emissions to help grapple with the environmental attribute scores, meaningful information is not available at this time. In addition, the portfolios being evaluated in the IEP result in net exports from BC Hydro. All of the environmental attributes of generation in B.C. are being tracked. It did not seem appropriate to then reduce the local air emissions or land impacts that occur in B.C just because these impacts are being reduced in the U.S. or Alberta. (c) To provide any information on peak versus non-peak and heavy load versus light load impacts (i.e. do emissions vary over time or by season?). Generally, information is not available through the eGRID database on how emissions vary over time vis-à-vis BC Hydro’s net imports. What is available is information on NOx emissions for the ‘ozone season’, which extends from May to September. (d) Provide information on the WECC Resource Mix, and performance standards for States In the U.S., air emissions are regulated under federal and state law2. The primary federal law is the Clean Air Act, which includes national ambient air quality standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The goal of these standards is to protect human health and focuses on local air emissions such as NOx, SOx, and Hg. The newly proposed (not yet legislation) Clear Skies Act furthers local air emission standards and would set mandatory emission caps on SO2, NOx and Hg, and thus allow for trading. The U.S. EPA asserts the Clear Skies Act would reduce power plant emissions of these pollutants by 70%.3 In addition, U.S power companies also consider local emissions impacts in their planning exercises. For example, information is available in the PacificCorp, and Idaho Power Integrated Resource Planning documents (their websites are listed in the footnotes below) showing monetary values placed on local air emissions.
Local Air Emissions and Land Impacts – Recommendation
At this time, the IEP project team recommends not including local air emissions or land impacts within the characterization of imports.
2
Unless otherwise noted, the information on US air quality laws comes from the PacifiCorp 2004 Integrated Resource Plan http://www.pacificorp.com/Navigation/Navigation23807.html
3 http://www.epa/gov/air/clearskies/legis.html
BC Hydro 2005 IEP – PIEPC Meeting 5 – Characterizing Non-Firm Market Imports for Evaluation Page 4 of 4