Some appropriate header and then an introduction goes here. Need also to check the Head and Meta statements, get text a good size, create good CSS styles, etc.
Digging into 3,700 pages of BPA's FOIA-exempt deliberative documents -- uncovered by Federal Courts in response to Great Old Broads for the Wilderness' unsatisfying FOIA request -- the public gets an important behind the scences look at BPA's shenanigans.
(I)f the BPA/EFI Lower Snake River analysis proceeds, EERE-WPTO is prepared to offer strategic support to BPA.
. . .
Presuming that the study does proceed, we should find a way to introduce the BPA group to this DOE-Lab team.Show/Hide
-- internal Department of Energy email from Ryan Wiser
to DOE's Emily Hammond,
Patricia Hoffman,
Whitney Muse,
Jeremiah Baumann,
Steve Capanna,
Jennifer Garson,
Kathryn Jackson,
Paul Spitsen &
Samuel BockenhauerFebruary 3, 2022, 2:01PM
E3 works with clients from all sectors of the electricity industry across the U.S., we provide a 360-degree understanding of markets, planning, policy, regulation, and environmental factors. Just as important, we are committed to delivering clear, unbiased analyses that help clients make informed decisions often in complex and multi-stakeholder contexts.
. . .
with exceptional attention to detail.
. . .
Our integrity and reputation for providing high-quality, unbiased work, earned over may years of successful projects, especially in the Pacific Northwest...
Show/Hide
-- E3 introductory presentation to Bonneville Power Authority
February 7, 2022
Studies from Pacific Northwest National Lab ("PNNL") informs us that reservoirs impounded by Lower Snake River ("LSR") dams produce methane gas, which is a potent, though relatively short-lived, greenhouse gas. Incongrously, state law in both Washington and Oregon allow hydropower to be "an eligible source of GHG-free energy".
Also worth noting is that it is assumed, from the start, that a future electrical grid without LSR dams will be more expensive than one without.
Hydropower is an eligible source of GHG-free energy for all existing state clean energy goals
. . .
Each scenario will be run in RESOLVE twice (see figure).
Show/Hide
-- BPA Value of Lower Snake River Dams: Kickoff Meeting
March 9, 2022
E3 email to BPA:
Quick question: we are doing some data quality checks on our historical hydro hourly data. Do you have a sense of the minimum generation for the 4 lower snake river dams? Clearly we'll remove a few 0 MW values we found, but am seeking your input on what a reasonable lower bound is for the 4 dams min gen, e.g. would they ever operate at a combined output of 50 MW or is that too small? 100 MW? 200 MW? Etc.
. . .
BPA's James Eve responds:
The lower Snake projects are able to operate to 0 generation by choice (not outage related) in Dec -- Feb so do not remove the 0 MW data during those months as they are likely correct to optimize reservoir content to generate during peak load periods.
. . .
E3 confirms:
We do see 0 MW during winter months, so we won't remove those. We just have hourly generation data, without explicit callouts for outages.
. . .
Show/Hide
-- E3 email from Aaron Burdick to BPA's Robert Diffely, Eve James, Birgit Koehler
March 18, 2022, 11:42AM
"... we will let E3 perform the study independently. We do not plan to be engaged in their work as the aim was to have an independent 3rd party perform this study."
. . .
Based on the email below, it sounds like knowledge of the E3 analysis is now public. Is that right? Just wondering what NWPCC as well as various other NW stakeholders know, or do not know, about the study's existence, scope and timing.
Show/Hide
-- DOE email from Ryan Wiser to BPA's Brigit Koehler
March 23, 2022 5:06PM
Missing file
BPA's 2022 "White Book" informs decisionmakers that 438 aMW of "firm energy" can be expected from the LSR dams. Instead of providing E3 with this number -- important that it is when considering grid reliability -- 3,483MW of "Nameplate Capacity" is provided. That number represents what is available during a flood situation (the overload capacity), when all turbines are available to run at full tilt.
The lower snake river dams provide relatively low-cost and flexible carbon free power (and) are ~10% of the Northwest regional hydropower capacity.
- Nameplate capacity 3,483MW
* Nameplate capacities from BPA White book
- 50-year Forecasted Costs $16.74/MWh
* Costs provided by BPA based on CRSO EIS including sustaining capex, O&M, and fish + wildlife related costsShow/Hide
-- Lower Snake River Dams Replacement Draft Results prepared for BPA Executive Meeting
April 27, 2022
Hydropower resources provide unique system benefits to support system needs in the region
Show/Hide
-- Lower Snake River Dams Replacement Draft Results prepared for BPA Executive Meeting
April 27, 2022
Summary of No LSR Dam Resolve Analysis: (see years 2045 and 2035 on slide 18)LSR Replacement Needs: (see red rectangle highlighting on slide 19)
- 1.5 GW li-ion battery with 0.2 GW by 2035 for S2: Deep Decarbonization:
- 10 GW li-ion battery with 6 GW by 2035 for S2a1: Deep Decarbonization, Limited Tech (no new combustion):
2035 replacement is driven by resource adequacy needs
2045 replacement is driven by both resource adequacy and clean energy needs
- Firm gas, H2, or nuclear provide replacement RA capacity
- Scenarios without firm capacity (e.g. No New Combustion) require RA to be replaced by very large amounts of wind, solar, and batteries
- Firm gas, H2, or nuclear provide replacement RA capacity; additional solar, wind, nuclear, and/or hydrogen generation replace clean energy output
- Scenarios without firm capacity require RA to be replaced by very large amounts of wind, solar, and batteries.
Show/Hide
-- Lower Snake River Dams Replacement Draft Results prepared for BPA Executive Meeting
April 27, 2022
Mature Technologies
- . . .
- Storage resources support renewable integration but show limited value in the Northwest with the large hydro fleet.
- Demand response supports peak reduction but faces same ELCC decline as batteries;. . .
- . . .
- . . .
Show/Hide
-- Lower Snake River Dams Replacement Draft Results prepared for BPA Executive Meeting
April 27, 2022
Incongruently, E3's model is given a starting assumption that is much higher (2,284MW = 65% of 3,483MW Nameplate) than the CRSO EIS holds to be true (1,120 for Multi-Objective 3 and only 760MW is attributable to LSR breaching). Yet BPA is hoping for a result that matches the CRSO Record of Decision ("ROD").
I just looked up our EIS result for MO3 (dam breaching and other measures). With least-cost replacements (combined cycle gas), we identified 1,120 MW need for 2022. Comparing that to S0, No policy, the E3 results have around 2,500 MW for 2035. That's a pretty dramatic difference...
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Birgit Koehler to E3's Aaron Burdick, Arne Olson & BPA's Robert Diffely, Eve James
April 28, 2022, 11:45AM
In all but three months of the year, the LSR dams are required to produce energy to protect salmon and steelhead in the river. If all the incoming water were instead directed to the spillways, away from power generating turbines, high concentrations of gas would accumulate in the reservoir downstream. US Geological Survey reports of Gas Bubble Trauma are available at the Fish Passage Center website.
One scenario results in an increase in energy exports from the regionm, alongside "frequent over-supply conditions" that force solar and wind energy curtailments.
S2a1: Deep Decarbonization - Limited Tech w/ No New Combustion
Without new natural gas or H2 combustion turbines to meet growing resource adequacy needs, a large overbuild of onshore wind, offshore wind, and battery storage are selected
. . .
Exports from the region increase due to more frequent over-supply conditions, curtailment reaches 60% in 2045.
Show/Hide
-- Lower Snake River Dams Replacement Draft Results prepared for BPA Executive Meeting
April 27, 2022
Current BPA Generation Rate 3.5 cents/kWh. . .
LSR Dam all-in Generation costs (2022 $/MWh)
$13/MWh without LSRCP
$17/MWh with LSRCP
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Eve James to Aaron Burdick
May 4, 2022 9:55AM
S2: Deep Decarbonization (2035)
2.0 GW NG/H2 CCGT
0.1 GW li-ion battery (was 0.2 GW by 2035)
0.6 GW wind
S2: Deep Decarbonization (2045)
2.0 GW NG/H2 CCGT
0.3 GW li-ion battery (was 1.5 GW)
0.4 GW wind
0.05 GW energy efficiency
1.2 TWh H2 generation
. . .
NOTE for SCOTT: I see an April 27 report at bottom of BPA E3 Study Records -- Third Release Part 1.pdf)Hydro is a Key Regional Source of Reactive Power (slide 48)
Hydro is a Key Regional Source of Reactive Power (slide 49)
- . . .
- Most ancillary benefits can be provided by any turbine-based generation resource
- However, hydropower supplies benefits without the emissions cost of conventional thermal resources
- Hydropower is uniquely suited to overhead-dependent grid services like dynamic reactive power support
Voltage Ride-Through and Frequency Response (slide 50)
- Hydropower operates with more headroom than conventional turbine-based resources
- PNW hydropower provides > 30% of reactive power in the WECC
- . . .
- . . .
- . . .
- Inverter-based renewables provide limited reactive power in the current system
- Hydro continues to be a key source of reactive power benefits even in low flow years
Inertia Buffers the Grid Against Instability (slide 51)
- Hydro generators are uniquely tolerant of high and low frequency events
- Conventional thermal turbines trip offline outside a narrow frequency range to avoid permanent damage to turbine blades
Additional Grid Resilience Benefits (slide 52)
- NREL: "Inertia is derived from hundreds or thousands of generators that are synchronized, meaning they are all rotating in lock step at the same frequency"
- As the Pacific Northwest and other regions in the WECC pursue low-carbon electric systems, there may be many operating hours when conventional generating facilites that historically provided inertia are not online
- Inverter-based generation cannot inherently provide inertia, but may still be able to provide fast frequency response via grid forming inverters
- However, renewables are expected to reduce the need for inertia
- NREL researchers point out other design solutions, such as power electronics that increase the responsiveness of renewable generation, can be tapped to preserve system reliability in a low-inertia system.
- Black start capability
- Participation in Remedial Action Schemes
- Short-Circuit and Grounding Contribution
Show/Hide
-- BPA Lower Snake River Dams Project Draft Final Results"
May 4, 2022
Hydropower dominates historical generation, followed by coal and natural gas
- Wind has grown but remains a small share of generation
- Solar has only very recently started to grow in its share of generation
Show/Hide
-- BPA Lower Snake River Dams Project: Draft Final Results
May 6, 2022
Newly created day-ahead, 1-hour and 15 minute markets have greatly improved reliability of the Western Electrical Coordinating Committee ("WECC") grid. Day time solar energy (from CA, NV, AZ, NW) being in abundant supply, relatively low-cost electricity is purchased by BPA and Northwest hydropower is throttled back. Then as sunset arrives, hydropower is sold back through these same market mechanisms.
Energy is stored for when it is needed. Currently the "hydropower fleet" provides this service, but battery storage has become cost competitive.
Utility IRP expectations of firm capacity in the form of market purchases pose reliability risks due to regional resource adequacy trends (slide 52)
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Who to Whom
May 6, 2022
DOE commends BPA for engaging E3 in this study and appreciates the accelerated schedule within which it was conducted. A technical review of the study was conducted by DOE and National Lab staff. Following are consolidated comments.Note that some of this feedback, if addressed, would require substantive new work, and time. This is especially true for our comments on the scenarios, and on ELCC treatment and assumptions. We encourage discussions in the near term to determine whether and how to address those comments.
Excerpts from DOE-National Lab "Consolidated Comments":
... given the importance of resource adequacy to the analysis, it is important that ELCC estimates employed for the LSR dams use similar methods to those used for other resources. Some advocates in the Northwest have presented data and analysis suggesting that a much lower capacity credit is warranted, maybe half that assumed in the E3 study, see: Addressing-the-LSR-Peaking-Capacity.pdf (nwenergy.org). DOE has not independently assessed the linked paper, or the capacity credit of the Lower Snake River dams. But given the critical nature of this single input parameter, we recommend that E3 evaluate the linked paper and LSR output data during periods of system stress to either validate or revise the assumed 65% capacity credit.
. . .
Slide 36: This slide or others ideally would show load and how storage is being charged/discharged to help meet load. In addition, as per an earlier comment, we suggest adding slides showing why storage (and VRE) resources have such low ELCCs. overly off-putting to regional stakeholders
BPA Team excerpt:
"I am frustrated"
Show/Hide
-- internal BPA email from Eve James to E3's Aaron Burdick & Arne Olson
May 12, 2002 7:18AM
"Finally, are such low ELCC values for storage, even 12-hour storage, consistent with the 65% ELCC assumption made for the LSR dams?"
"opportunity for imports and exports of all electricity services"
"The capacity credit of storage seems to be substantially lower than what has been calculated in other regions, particularly for the 12 - hr storage duration, after the first few GW of storage is deployed."
Note that some of this feedback, if addressed, would require substantive new work, and time. This is especially true for our comments on the scenarios, and on ELCC treatment and assumptions. We encourage discussions in the near term to determine whether and how to address those comments.
. . .
ELCC Values and Influence on Overall Results Deserve Attention: The capacity credit assumptions and results are likely extremely important in estimating the costs of having to replace the LSR dams' grid benefits.
. . .
- Cost Reporting: Can the fraction of the 'cost of LSR replacement' that comes from capacity needs be calculated? Based on the low raw LCOE costs of wind and solar, it seems logical that the capacity credit costs might make up half or even more of the total cost. If true, then all capacity-credit related assumptions and results are extremely important.
- Capacity Credit of LSR Dams Should be Investigated, and Possibly Revised: The analysis assumes that the LSR dams have, in effect, a 65% ELCC and so a resource adequacy value of 2.2 GW. Since the estimated replacement costs is driven in large measure by resource adequacy, confidence is needed on the capacity credit assigned to the LSR dams. As well, given the importance of resource adequacy to the analysis, it is important that ELCC estimates employed for the LSR dams use similar methods to those used for other resources. Some advocates in the Northwest have presented data and analysis suggesting that a much lower capacity credit is warranted, maybe half that assumed in the E3 study, see: Addressing-the-LSR-Peaking-Capacity.pdf (nwenergy.org). DOE has not independently assessed the linked paper, or the capacity credit of the Lower Snake River dams. But given the critical nature of this single input parameter, we recommend that E3 evaluate the linked paper and LSR output data during periods of system stress to either validate or revise the assumed 65% capacity credit. If a proper ELCC-type study for these facilities has not been conducted, then a review of historical output during periods of peak historical winter and summer (net) load could be used as an approximation. Under the decarbonization scenarios, a focus on the winter period or maybe the early fall (lower PV, so potentially high net load) may be relevant. Overall, more work is needed to validate these assumptions.
- Storage ELCC: The capacity credit of storage seems to be substantially lower than what has been calculated in other regions, particularly for the 12 - hr storage duration, after the first few GW of storage is deployed. We did not review the referenced study, but details on how these assumptions were created would be important within this slide deck. Information that would be helpful would include: (1) What does the winter peak look like? (time of day, duration, etc.); (2) What do resource profiles look like on that day, such that a combination of wind, solar, and 12-hour storage cannot contribute significantly? (3) Are interactions between wind, solar, and storage considered at all? (4) Are the scenarios in the referenced study similar enough to the scenarios in the LSR study to apply the same parameterization? Finally, are such low ELCC values for storage, even 12-hour storage, consistent with the 65% ELCC assumption made for the LSR dams?
- . . .
- Transmission Representation: Are the system-wide benefits of transmission (assumed to be needed for out of region wind and solar) considered? Is there any assumed resource adequacy contribution from this transmission, which could be provided from external "clean firm" resources? Also unclear more broadly how opportunity for imports and exports of all electricity services (energy, capacity, ancillary services) are being treated.
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Who to Whom
circa May 18, 2022, (undated)
As for the ELCC of the lower Snake projects, it is a little frustrating to hear them ask if the max capacity isn't just 1,000 MW like NWEC says. We have data to show that the peak capacity in the winter can be over 2,000 MW. (The average generation is 1,000 MW, so the peak will be higher anyhow.)
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Birgit Koehler to Eve James along with E3's Arne Olson & Aaron Burdick
May 19, 2022 12:21PM
This is also in the file called FrustratingAskIfMaxCapacity1000MW, a 12(?) page document
so maybe should be linking it instead, with several quotes from it.
e.g. I agree they don't point to any clear flaws, but they do point to key assumptions that drive the results but have a lot of uncertainty.
The 65% ELCC assumption we make is a clear driver of results, driven by the capacity need replacement. We're digging into some past work and the 2001 LSR output data provided by BPA to do some gut checks on that value. At the least, I could see us running a lower firm capacity % sensitivity as we discussed awhile back. We'll have a better opinion on a recommended approach once we've dug into that data a bit more.
next is the (R)egarding the comments.... (alredy included below)
(R)egarding the comments about ELCC assumptions, I can't tell if those are important to address or just note the source or logic behind the assumption ...
Show/Hide
-- Draft Final Report
May 19, 2022
Oh boy. Non-technical clearly is not E3's strong suit.
Show/Hide
-- internal BPA email from Birgit Koehler to Kathryn Pruder Scruggs, Eve James & VP Fish & Wildlife Scott Armentrout
May 20, 2022 4:38 PM
(perhaps) Mention that according to the CRSO EIS findings, sale price should be above cost of production it that is to 'sound business practices". For LSR dams, that sale price would thereby need to be ~$54/MWh, seldom achieved, and typically sold at a lower price, at a loss.
During average or high water years, Bonneville sells the surplus on the secondary market to help keep public power rates low.
Show/Hide
-- slide
May 20, 2022 4:38 PM
Can we make a map like this?. . .
Katie is working to improve the E3 non-technical version of the ppt. We're hoping to get that done very quickly because it is urgent that we get back to CEO and DOE as quickly as possible.
In fact, we should discuss with E3 (and amongst ourselves) if we are far enough along that we can schedule that meeting. Many people would be happy if we could do it next week.
Show/Hide
-- Internal BPA email from Kathryn Pruder Scruggs (Environmental Communications Specialist) to Robert Diffely
May 23, 2022
I'm not quite sure what to make of the E3 slides that show that replacement resources are less MW than the 3,500 MW of the LSN. Maybe it's OK, because we can still say that it seems odd to get rid of perfectly good generation.
Show/Hide
-- internal BPA email from Birgit Koehler to Eve James & Kathryn Pruder Scruggs
May 23, 2022 7:53 AM
Bottom line, we are suddenly under extreme pressure to get this done.
Show/Hide
-- internal BPA email from Birgit Koehler to Kathyrn Pruder Scruggs
May 23, 2022 3:15PM
Using Megapack, Tesla can deploy an emissions-free 250 MW, 1 GWh power plant in less than three months on a three-acre footprint - four times faster than a traditional fossil fuel power plant of that size.
Show/Hide
-- from Birgit's Husband
not datedUsing Megapack, Tesla can deploy an emissions-free 250 MW, 1 GWh power plant in less than three months on a three-acre footprint -- four times faster than a traditional fossil fuel power plant of that size.
Show/Hide
Maybe not overlay on the LSN reservoirs, because they are a large area themselves.
-- BPA internal email, Birgit Koehler to Kathryn Pruder Scruggs
Subject: RE: can we make a map like this?
May 23, 2022 10:26 AM
Show/Hide
I received from feedback that the "Bottom-Line Up Front" and Conclusion slides need some more work
. . .Attached are some "notes" for you to consider in the presentation. You can copy and paste into your template slides for the suggestions you like- feel free to edit and reword as needed. lam also sending a copy to Doug in our communications staff to see if he has any additional thoughts or comments since he is very good at messaging most of our lower Snake River dam capability public reports.
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Eve James to E3's Aaron Burdick & Arne Olson
May 25, 2022, 8:46AM
BPA's "Bottom Line" objective must therefore be to obfuscate the reality: Bury the fact that LSR dam removal is fast, cheap and easy.
This policy issue is looking for numbers: How much? How long?
Yes there are details, but put those after. So if you are looking
for how much -- its buried, or too complex.
And "How long?" is not in there specifically.
Show/Hide
-- Skype transcript of VP Fish & Wildlife Scott Armentrout
May 25, 2022
We can also plug in a couple of bullets from our news releases about the LSRD contribution to keeping the lights on during the cold snap and severe weather in winter 2021 and the June 2021 heat dome event.
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Doug Johnson to BPA's Birgit Koehler & Eve James along with E3's Arne Olson & Aaron Burdick
May 25, 2022 9:06 AM
During the December 2021 'Cold Snap', the Northwest was exporting 3000 to 4000 MW every hour of the day, December 24-30, while Lower Snake River was providing around one-quarter of this energy surplus.
We can also plug in a couple of bullets from our news releases about the LSRD contribution to keeping the lights on during the cold snap and severe weather in winter 2021 and the June 2021 heat dome event.
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Doug Johnson to Eve James and E3's Aaron Burdick & Arne Olsen
May 25, 2022
What are we losing?
. . .
- 3,483 MW of nameplate capacity, including more than 2,000MW of peaking capability to avoid power shortages during cold weather events.
(feedback re: 2,000MW of peaking capability) are exaggerating by only putting out the nameplate. Others are saying 1,000 -- we need to put our sustained capacity number up front to counter that narrative accurately
. . .How long would it take to replace the services from breaching the lower Snake River dams?
- It would take up to a decade or more to bring new resources on-line once a decision to breach dams has been reached.
Show/Hide
-- BPA notes of feedback upon an early E3 slide deck
undated
What are we losing?
- 3,483 MW of nameplate capacity
- Peaking capability of more than 2,000MW to avoid power shortages during cold weather events
. . .
Rate impacts to Public Power Customers
- Could increase public power costs by up to 65%
- Could raise residential electricity costs by up to $850 per year
. . .
Transmission grid reliability services:
"Can DOE provide cost estimate for this? This is example text so feel free to take out MW or $ and give order of magnitude if the costs won't move the needle."
- Voltage and reactive power: XXX MW for $XXX
- Frequency and Inertial response: XXX MW for $XXX
- Blackstart capability: XXX MW for $XXX
- Short-Circuit and Grounding Contribution: XXX MW for $XXX
- Voltage and Frequency Excursion Ride-Through: XXX MW for $XXX
- Participation in Remedial Action Schemes: XXX MW for $XXX
Show/Hide
-- BPA asks both DOE and E3 to fill in the blanks, unknown author
Undated (likely early April or May)
State EXACTLY what we are replacing. It's not 2,000 aMW, it's 3,483 of nameplate capacity.
Show/Hide
-- internal BPA email from Kathryn Pruder Scruggs to Eve James, Birgit Koehler and VP Scott Armentrout
May 25, 2022
I know this is a tough project - but maybe not as tough as doing CRSO over again - ugh
Show/Hide
-- transcribed Skype of VP Scott Armentrout
May 25, 2022
... E3 results compare with the results in the CRSO EIS to show they wouldn't change our decision on the alternative that was selected. Jill thinks that is important to include in the materials.
Show/Hide
-- Internal BPA email from Eve James to Kathryn Pruder Scruggs and Birgit Koehler
May 27, 2022 7:30AM
Here is some draft language to consider for the "E3 analysis not changing the decision" key message for the E3 study PPT. (8AM)
. . .
Yes, I guess not changing the decision is the bottom line. I can help with writing the message for the slide, if you like. (7:30AM)
Show/Hide
-- Internal BPA email from Kathryn Pruder Scruggs (Environmental Communications Specialist) to Eve James and Birgit Koehler
May 27, 2022 7:30AM & 8AM
This aligns with the findings of the CRSO EIS that LSR dams are not economic, but the Record of Decision (of October 2022) oddly kept the LSR dams in place. Now, for BPA's "environmental Communications" team, the "Bottom Line" is for that Record of Decision to be substantiated.
How could their assignment possibly be completed? Both the CRSO EIS analysis and E3's RESOLVE model found the same result: LSR dams are not necessary for a reliable grid. Purchasing daytime solar energy stored in batteries has a very low operating cost, especially when compared to LSR projects that require substantial manpower, O&M and non-routine maintenance costs to keep them running.
Answer: have the model downplay the role of battery storage.
In keeping with our strategy of non-defensive objectivity, could we just in a matter of fact manner point out that the emerging technology scenario by definition relies on technologies that do not exist yet a scale and that the timing and availability of those tecnnologies in the future is uncertain.Or something like that -- pretty sure you had a good bullet on that somewhere already.
. . .
(on slide)
While it is conceivable to replace power beneftis of the lower Snake River dams, it is expensive, lengthy and complex.Expensive
... $100 per year per househole without economy-wide decarbonization policies and with maturation of emerging technology or up to $850 per year for each public power household
Lengthy:
-- 15 to 30 years total for replacement resources -- it is unknown where replacement resources will be located and how much transmission infrastructure would be needed.
- Practically, likely 5 to 10 years for Congressional approval federal agency environmental compliance and Congressional appropriations
- Roughly 5 years to replace the capacity resources
- Realistically 15 to 20 years to build transmission, which includes providing compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, siting, permits, etc., if no litigation on siting
Complex: ... Breaching the four lower Snake River dams significantly adds to this deficit of resources in the region.
Show/Hide
-- Internal BPA email from Benjamin Zelinsky to Birgit Koehler, Eve James & Kathryn Pruder Scruggs (Environmental Communications Specialist)
May 27, 2022 7:30AM & 8AM
When a "High ELCC" for energy storage is assumed ...
The E3 Resolve model finds that under "Scenario 2a, Deep Decarbonization", LSR dam breaching provides a more reliable grid for 2% less than a grid that keeps LSR dams intact. (E3's "Deep Decarbonization" scenario requires that all electricity generated or imported from other regions emits no carbon emissions, and forsees sizeable demand increase due to the electrification of buildings, transportation, and industry )
Interestingly, E3's "Baseline" scenario also shows a cost savings of 2% when LSR dams are breached. Either way you go (E3 only reported these two results when assuming a "High ELCC" for battery storage), LSR dams are not providing "power benefits" but make a future power grid more expensive (see page 41 of Final Report).
Updated deck is attached.
We noted 700-900 aMW for now on slide 3, pending any further data/guidance on this (though we've still modeled 706 aMW in our RESOLVE cases).
. . .
The average annual generation with the updated CRSO EIS assumptions on the LSN projects is 862 aMW for the 90 year streamflow set.
. . .
Some white book data I was looking at had the LSN gen -940 aMW but I want to make sure it has the correct spill operation.
. . .
...we could also just add a note that says 700-900 aMW*
(* E3's RESOLVE model uses 2001, 2005, and 2011 hydro years, which resulted in ~700 aMW of lower snake river dams generation, making it a conservative estimate of the dams' GHG-free energy value).
. . .
We're nearing a second draft. Can we meet briefly after lunch to discuss how we've integrated the BPA feedback and confirm any open questions?
Show/Hide
-- E3 email from Aaron Burdick to BPA's Eve James & Birgit Koehler
May 27, 2022, 5:25PM
Interesting that these were all 1982. Clearly no spill, and some are 3 hours. We can find a way to say that we have generated over 3,400 MW somewhere in our presentations.
. . .
Maybe once fish operations happened on the projects so 1990 - 2021? I have some look back data that has a high value of 2955 MW - is ther any data higher than that for that date range?
Show/Hide
-- BPA email from Who to Whom
May 31, 2022, 4:42PM
Some of the statements we had in our notes suggestions they weren't comfortable putting in since the study wasn't about that topic specifically and they want to keep the slides clean and independent from BPA messaging
Show/Hide
-- Transcript of Skype between Birgit Koehler and Eve James
May 31, 2022
Scenario 1: 100% Clean Retail Sales
- 100% of retail sales met with clean energy by 2045, ~85% carbon reduction
- Business-as-usual load growth
- Can be achieved using existing mature technologies
Scenario 2: Deep Decarbonization
- Zero carbon emissions remain in 2045
- High electrification load growth consistent with economy-wide carbon abatement scenarios.
- Emerging technologies are key to meeting higher winter reliability needs with carbon-free power
. . .
Replacing the Lower Snake River Dams
Scenario 1: 100% Clean Retail Sales
- Capacity replaced with dual fuel natural gas + hydrogen turbines
- Energy replaced by wind and net imports
Replacing the Lower Snake River Dams
Scenario 2: Deep Decarbonization
- Capacity replaced with dual fuel natural gas + hydrogen turbines
- Energy replaced by wind and net imports
Show/Hide
-- BPA Lower Snake River Dams Project Draft Final Results
May 2022
In the opinion of bluefish, BPA executives have long been less-than-honest in reporting LSR power benefits, and this has unpacks a raft of supporting evidence.
Consider BPA's interpretation of its foundational legal directive; to "market this power in such a manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles". Are they complying with their mandate? How does this depend on the meaning of "market"? Tobacco companies being emblematic.
More to the point, is everyone in BPA's executive suite always in full agreement on interpreting their foundational legal directive?
Revealing is a transcribed Skype (5/25/22) wherein Vice President Fish and Wildlife, Scott Armentrout, makes a proposal to BPA Executives. Shouldn't there exist a trigger to inform leadership as to when a hydropower project (e.g. salmon-killing LSR dams) is worth the cost or not. Fish mitigation costs on LSR projects are exorbitant, and this thereby is reasonable proposal to consider.
Recently in the news, "public power" has been seeking to be relieved of the economic burden placed upon them by high-cost federal dams in Willamette Valley, Oregon. A similar argument could be laid upon the LSR projects. Importantly, both sets of dams were Congressionally authorized for purpose of "commercial navigation" (check that SCOTT, logs I recall), with hydropower production playing an auxilary, seconday role.
With their "commerical navigation" declining over the years, and maintenance costs remaining high, at some point their obsolescence is assured. Is it not? The "power benefits" then become important metrics for decision makers to consider.
Early in the E3 study process, VP Armentrout asks for such a trigger; what would tip the scale towards river restoration and dam breaching? BPA's VP of Fish & Wildlife deserves such an answer.
I heard (P)ower (a division of BPA separate from Transmission) say that power generation at the Willamette's was no longer beneficial at a certain number. ... While not relevant with this E3 study, it is a concept I still think leadership could use -- what are we watching for as triggers to make a conclusion that a cost is worth it or not worth it.In searching through the available record, it seems that no reply was then provided to BPA's VP Armentrout. To ask leadership for some preset condition from which "to make a conclusion that a cost is worth it or not worth it" is reasonable, especially when coming from the Vice President of Fish and Wildlife. As well, it seems to comply pefectly with the "sound business practices" that BPA is legal obliged to follow.
Show/Hide
-- Skype transcript of Scott Armentrout relayed by Birgit Koehler to Kathryn Pruder Scruggs (Environmental Communications Specialist) and Eve James,
May 25, 2022 9:49AM
Prinicipal and interest comprise a large portion of BPA "overhead" expense; a full one third of overall cost. LSR hydropower combined with LSR Compensation Plan ("LSRCP") hatcheries cost BPA customers an estimated $17/MW of the $35/MWh for "firm energy".
High power density of Lithium ion battery storage requires a very small footprint. Battery storage at (nearly) every BPA substation would contribute to grid reliability greatly.
Solar, wind, battery storage, ... their effective load carrying capability ("ELCC") based on E3's RECAP modeling from its 2019 Resource Adequacy in the Pacific Northwest study.26 Figure 13 shows the initial capacity values for these resources, as well as the declining marginal contributions as more of the resource is added.
By assuming that batteries can only be charged from within the NW Core, the model is made unaware of imports/exports from other regions that could charge batteries win NW Core renewables are not generating (e.g. Cold Snaps accompanied by low wind).