Council Meeting MinutesEugene Hilton Hotel and Conference Center March 5-6, 2002 1. Panel on power plan issues paper
Watson introduced speakers invited to comment on Issues for the Fifth Power Plan, a paper the Council put out in February. A staff handout outlined the issues as follows: incentives for development of generation; increasing the price responsiveness of demand; sustaining economically efficient investment in efficiency measures; assessing power supply adequacy and market performance; fish operations and power; transmission; value of and barriers to resource diversity; the future role and obligations of Bonneville; and climate change risks to the power system. Alan Zelenka, resource manager for Emerald PUD, said the challenge for the Council is to make the Power Plan relevant for the industry. I worry about it being out in time to deal with major issues we are facing, he added. Zelenka suggested the role of the Direct Service Industries (DSIs) in the region is an issue that should be added to the paper. The DSI issue is “the elephant in the room” and needs to be brought up, he said, adding that the staff should evaluate tiered rates for federal power. Despite years of good work in the region, “some people just don’t get it with conservation,” Zelenka continued. The Power Plan should not miss the opportunity to address the issue, he said, advising the Council to consider whether conservation should be taken out of the hands of utilities in order to achieve stability with funding and programs. Zelenka also recommended the Council look at whether to institute a renewables portfolio standard for the region. We also need to take the issue of market abuse very seriously, he stated. It is incumbent on the Northwest to go beyond looking at data and address the issue of how to identify and rectify instances of market abuse, Zelenka pointed out. There was a lot of money transferred from the region’s ratepayers to others during the energy crisis, he said. With regard to transmission, the Council should analyze the RTO West study, Zelenka stated. The study is incomplete, and it needs to be looked at closely within the framework of the Power Plan, he added. Zelenka urged the Council to look at alternative structures to RTOs – “don’t use the FERC cookie-cutter model” – and look at the tradeoffs between demand-side management (DSM) and new transmission development. There is a lot of resistance to siting transmission, he said, adding that opposition is no longer “not in my backyard,” but has escalated to “not on this planet.” That will become a big consideration, Zelenka advised. Another “huge issue” with transmission is who will pay for congestion management, he added. And there is the issue of the pricing to integrate wind resources into the transmission grid, Zelenka said. It might be appropriate for the Council to look at the President’s proposal with regard to global climate change, he said. The Northwest will be contributing much more CO2 to the planet with the development of additional fossil-fuel generation, Zelenka indicated. “I hope we won’t decide it’s not cost-effective to save ourselves,” he concluded. While it might be appropriate for the Council to look at global climate change, the National Academy of Sciences has indicated the science is inconsistent about what effects climate change could have, Jim Kempton responded. The Council ought not to venture into the scientific realm or into President Bush’s response to the Kyoto Treaty – that would take us away from the direction we ought to be going, he cautioned. Scott Spettel, power manager for EWEB, said he was impressed with the Council’s issue paper. It is comprehensive and the issues are well described, he said. Spettel recommended the Council give “explicit consideration” to the various audiences for its Power Plan and try to clear up some of the confusion about energy issues. He suggested the plan could be a tool for agency staffs, especially those that might work with independent power producers, to learn about energy issues and the context for their agencies’ decisions. With regard to gauging whether market mechanisms are working to assure adequate resource development, Spettel said he strongly supports consideration of a fail-safe plan and establishing a threshold “so we can tell if the market is not working.” He said EWEB’s long-term plan is to diversify its resources, and the Council should give attention to the issue of incentives and disincentives for resource development. As for the question of whether load-serving utilities should supply capacity margins, “our response is no,” Spettel said. That could lead to over-development, he added. Load-serving utilities should be involved in any proposals to buy back load during periods of shortages, Spettel continued. EWEB supports the public benefits charge as a way to stimulate investments in energy efficiency and dedicates 5 percent of its retail revenues to those benefits, he reported. Spettel also said that EWEB uses a tiered-rate structure to get a price-induced response from end-use customers. As for the tradeoffs between power and fish, we need certainty about what the operations will be under various water conditions, including dry years, he said. Utilities that are trying to hedge their risks in the market or develop resources need to know this – “if you don’t know if the river constraints will be violated, you don’t know if you can recover your investments,” Spettel pointed out. The Council is in a unique position to bring transparency to the transmission issues, he went on, and to develop scenarios for the costs and benefits of wire versus non-wire solutions, educate the public and policymakers, and explore the issue of transmission credits. Spettel pointed out that one issue needing attention is the queues that have developed for access to the transmission grid. Developers are lined up to get their proposed resources on the grid, and the system for addressing the requests is not working efficiently, he indicated. We support the “slice concept” for the federal system, Spettel said, noting that EWEB has purchased the Slice product from Bonneville. In the future, we see Bonneville “as one of many slicers,” he concluded. Eric Bloch said the Council is very interested in the issue of river operations with regard to fish. I’d advocate a formula that lets us look four to five months ahead and plan our power supplies, Spettel responded. What are the alternatives for assuring there are capacity reserves? Karier asked. The responsibility for reliability should be centralized and rest with one entity, rather than having all entities maintain their own capacity margins, Spettel responded. He indicated that under such an arrangement, “we could get away with smaller margins.” Peter West, Renewable Northwest Project, said his organization welcomes the Council’s interest in exploring renewable resource issues. He credited the confirmation agenda laid out in the Council’s 1991 Power Plan with “putting wind on the map” in the region. We’ve gone from an initial project to 425 megawatts of wind, with another 50 MW ready to come on line, West said. Since 1991, the Council has ceded renewables to other entities, and it’s time for you to get back in and support them – find and highlight the mechanisms to take them into the future, he urged. The Council is looking at renewables with too much of a near-term view, West said. You’re not looking out far enough to get a good analysis, he added. I didn’t see a mention of the green market in the issue paper, West continued. Two years ago, there were no green kilowatts, but today there are over 20,000 people in the region signed up for green resources, he said. You should think about the green market as akin to recycling 20 or 30 years ago – recycling now subsidizes garbage rates, West added. He urged the Council to think about the mechanisms that would support the green market and to consider the economic development value of keeping dollars that might otherwise be spent on imported power in the region. “We’re spending a lot of money shipping power around,” West said of the transmission grid. We’ve pushed the system to the limit, and renewables and distributed energy resources can help relieve transmission congestion, he stated. The region needs to mesh the location of renewables with transmission planning to avoid doing things that would preclude developing a renewable resource, according to West. He said the Council staff should also take a look at the costs of integrating renewables into the transmission grid. Bonneville is doing a lot to curtail excess charges, West said, but the agency pegs the cost of overall integration much higher than do some other sources. And the Council needs to look at a portfolio standard for renewables, he said. Consider something similar to what you did in 1991, West concluded. Karier observed that most of the region’s wind projects start small and increase in size over time. There are initial start-up costs that are uniform regardless of the size, and it’s incrementally cheaper as a project gets larger, West explained. How is the market dealing with the uncertainty about the renewable tax credit? Bloch asked. That’s an extremely important issue, Spettel responded. We need a two-year extension for the credit or the projects will start to wither, he said. The only project that would go forward without the credit is the Energy Northwest development, West added. 2. Presentation on assessment of implementation of the federal Biological Opinion
Nicole Cordon, policy director for Save Our Wild Salmon (SOWS), briefed the Council on a recently released Salmon Plan Report Card, in which the coalition of salmon advocates gave federal agencies failing marks for their 2001 efforts to implement the 2000 Biological Opinion (BiOp). [The SOWS report refers to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2000 BiOp and the federal agencies’ Salmon Plan, released in December 2000, as the same thing.] SOWS supported removal of the four lower Snake River dams, Cordon acknowledged, but said the coalition has since rethought its position and determined its goal is salmon protection, not dam removal. “We know that the current BiOp path is non-breach,” and “we understand that is the game we’re playing,” she said. If the region is to avoid stronger measures in the future, including dam breaching, the federal agencies have to take aggressive action on other fronts, including habitat and water quality improvements, Cordon stated. Our report card checks in on whether we’re doing what we need to for salmon recovery and to identify places where we need improvement, she explained. SOWS graded the agencies’ progress on 129 of the 199 “reasonable and prudent alternative actions” in the BiOp, Cordon said. In SOWS’ view, the government’s salmon plan required that something happen on each of the 129 measures in 2001, she continued. SOWS awarded measures a “pass, fail, or incomplete” grade, Cordon explained. “I was somewhat astonished at how little we had done in the first year of a 10-year plan,” she stated. The bottom line for six categories into which the 129 measures were grouped is five “Fs” and one “D,” the report card states. It lists the five failing categories as clean water improvements, surviving the dams, hatcheries and harvest, studies and reporting, and funding. According to the SOWS report card, the agencies did “D” work on tributary and estuary habitat improvements. We saw implementation of less than 25 percent of the measures needed, Cordon stated. NMFS put forward a budget of $900 million to implement the plan, but the Administration asked for less than half of that amount from Congress, she said. In the end, Congress allocated more than the Administration asked for, according to Cordon. If I could ask you to do one thing, it would be to work with your Congressional delegation to get more funding to implement this plan, she told the Council. It was difficult to get the Northwest delegation together on this, Cordon acknowledged. If we differ with your findings, who is it we are differing with? Do you have a science panel? Karier asked. Cordon responded that coalition partners and staff, including some scientists, had put the report card together based on agency information. “If you disagree on the accuracy, I’d love to know,” she added. Are the agencies doing something like this? Karier asked. We understand there will be something from them within a month, Cordon responded. There are non-controversial measures that could be undertaken, Bloch commented. Are there programmatic reasons the agencies are “high-centered” on these things? he asked. NMFS got less than 50 percent of the funding needed, and with a new Administration, there is probably confusion and slowness in moving forward, Cordon replied. We had a drought last year, which put “a damper” on some activities, “but that doesn’t explain the complete and utter failure to implement,” she added. “It behooves folks to take a different approach or we’ll be looking at dam removal again,” Cordon stated. Cassidy pointed out that salmon runs hit record highs last year. But we missed the opportunity to do something for the out-migrants, Condon said. Judi Danielson told Cordon that along with its conclusions, it would be helpful if SOWS suggested solutions. And we’d like a list of your science panel, she added. “SOWS still believes the BiOp is not the plan that will restore salmon,” Cordon responded. It is inadequate under the Endangered Species Act, she said. I would give you an “A” for your presentation, but “I suspect there is more balance than you’ve presented here,” Ed Bartlett commented. I credit your organization with “ringing the bell,” Cassidy said. This puts pressure on the agencies to document their progress – it starts a useful and productive debate, Karier added. 3. Briefing on Regional Transmission Organization and discussion of Councilcomments
The sponsors of the RTO West effort are coming to the end of a two-year formation process, staffer Dick Watson told the Council, adding that it has been a complex, contentious, and controversial undertaking. He explained that the utilities would be filing a proposal with FERC at the end of March, which would be put out for comment. The staff has outlined issues for the Council to consider in formulating any comments it might choose to submit to FERC, Watson indicated. The Power Committee is considering options for comments on “high-profile issues,” and staff is trying to develop recommendations on them for the next Council meeting, he said. Wally Gibson gave an overview of the RTO West proposal and associated issues. An RTO would provide non-discriminatory access to the region’s transmission system, he said. Physics play an important role in electricity transmission – transmission is an active part of the system, not just a conduit for delivery, Gibson explained. Unlike the flow of gas, which is largely controllable, the flow of electricity is almost entirely a function of the fixed physical characteristics of the system, and it requires much tighter control, he said. “The commercial problem” with an interconnected transmission system is matching the physical ownership rights to power flows and their consequences, Gibson said. He went over the legislative history and emergence of a competitive wholesale generation market in which independent power producers play a prominent role. The problem is how to foster a competitive wholesale generation market when transmission is controlled by the owners of generation, Gibson explained. This is the issue FERC addressed in Order 888, he said, which pushed the electricity industry toward eliminating the monopoly transmission structure. The order required separation of investor-owned utility (IOU) generation and transmission businesses and required IOUs to give third parties access to their transmission systems on the same terms and conditions they offer their own affiliates, Gibson said. The order brought many publicly owned systems into the fold by allowing IOUs to refuse these terms to entities that did not reciprocate, he said. FERC Order 2000 took things a step further by allowing for the establishment of independent RTOs to operate transmission systems and control them for reliability, open access, congestion management, and expansion, Gibson continued. There are currently three RTOs operating or being developed in the West, including the California ISO, RTO West, and WestConnect, he said. RTO West, which includes eight IOUs plus Bonneville and BC Hydro, has the largest geographic area of the three, according to Gibson. FERC laid out a number of required characteristics for RTOs in terms of their financial independence and scope of operation, and gave them exclusive authority for short-term system reliability, he said. FERC also set up standards for pricing, managing congestion, addressing parallel flow issues, providing ancillary services, administering an Internet-based scheduling system (OASIS), monitoring markets for transmission services, planning for additions and upgrades, and ensuring reliability in the interfaces with other regions, Gibson explained. An RTO offers potential value in a number of areas, he went on. It would give price signals for more efficient future investments and promote operational efficiency for generating resources, Gibson explained. He likened what is probably the most important benefit of an RTO, but the most difficult to quantify, to telephone deregulation. “You probably wouldn’t all have these cell phones” if the nation had stuck with a regulated monopoly structure for telecommunications, Gibson said. Under regulation, monopoly companies replaced equipment on a schedule related to depreciation, rather than innovation and technological advances, he pointed out. The RTO structure has the potential to stimulate a different kind of market than we would have with a monopoly system still intact, Gibson suggested. Will private investors build resources without assured transmission? Chair Larry Cassidy asked. “Yes and no,” Gibson responded. Developers are getting in line for transmission, there is a queue of about 90 plants right no, but the process isn’t as well established as you might think, and transmission is often the last consideration, he said. Getting access to transmission isn’t as clear-cut as it could be with a more centralized system, Gibson added. Could California outbid a Northwest entity for transmission and move power to a California load? Karier asked. Under some circumstances that could happen, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing, Gibson replied. There are potential drawbacks to an RTO, however, he pointed out. There would be significant costs to set up and run an RTO, Gibson said, adding that it would cost over $100 million a year to operate. The RTO also represents a major change in current practices, and there is potential for unforeseen consequences, he added. A consultant’s cost/benefit analysis has just been released, but preliminary comments on it are largely critical, and the biggest benefit is not quantifiable in that type of study, Gibson stated. He outlined the status of issues related to RTO West, including planning, congestion management, pricing, facilities inclusion, and market monitoring. With planning, there is opportunity for market participants to act on their own, with a limited “backstop” role for the RTO to ensure adequacy and address “chronic, significant commercial congestion,” Gibson explained. The “big issue” with congestion is ensuring that current rights holders are held harmless from congestion costs, he said. The problem an RTO faces with pricing is minimizing cost shifts, while recovering the existing system costs, eliminating pancaked transmission rates, and minimizing volumetric charges, according to Gibson. The RTO West proposal raises a potential disparity between old and new generators, in that loads changing to new generators are likely to have to pay two transmission charges, he pointed out. They would pay only one if they stay with their existing source of generation, Gibson explained. That is likely to be a problem for the proposal at FERC, he added. The problem with facilities inclusion relates to incorporating into an RTO all facilities that provide wholesale service, even if they are relatively low voltage, Gibson continued. From the IOU perspective, some of these facilities are more like distribution than bulk transmission and could be used to facilitate retail access; but from the small public agency perspective, the facilities are needed to provide wholesale service, he explained. The issue is how to include them under the RTO structure, Gibson indicated. There is also discussion going on among the three RTOs in the West about setting up a single market-monitoring unit, Gibson said. It would not have authority to enforce the law, impose penalties, implement price caps, or change tariffs, but it could recommend those things to the appropriate entities, he concluded. Are we sending information to state legislators about this? Cassidy asked. We haven’t done that yet, Watson responded. There is “a thirst for knowledge” on these issues, Cassidy said, adding that he was recently deluged with questions about the RTO at a legislative event. Karier suggested the staff’s write-up on the issues be sent to all Council members and also used as a tool to educate legislators. 4. Council decision on subbasin planning contracting structure and outline for technical support
We’re moving at a rapid pace with Bonneville to get funding for the subbasin planning process, staffer Doug Marker reported. He said staff is looking for the Council’s approval of its approach to the contracting and technical support for the subbasin plans. Brian Allee, who recently left the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) to join the Council’s fish and wildlife (F&W) staff, said subbasin planning in the region is being set up as a decentralized effort that includes state, local, and tribal F&W managers, governments, interest groups and stakeholders, and other state and federal water resource managers. We’ve had good cooperation from Bonneville in working out the details for contracts that will pay for the work to be done, he said. The subbasin planning infrastructure the staff developed takes in three levels of effort, Allee said: regional, state/provincial, and subbasin. The staff has put together a detailed plan for managing the work to bring the subbasin plans in on a schedule that is based on three deliverable products, he continued: a subbasin assessment, an inventory of existing projects, and a 10-to-15-year management plan. Allee said staff would ask the Council to approve the contract structure for achieving the work at its April or May meeting. Staff developed an overall budget of $15.25 million dollars, according to Allee. The budget calls for $9.3 million to cover level one, subbasins; $5.4 million for level two, state/provincial; and $500,000 for level three, regional, he explained. Allee laid out a schedule for the process that calls for completing the subbasins in the Columbia Gorge, Inter-Mountain, and Mountain Columbia provinces by May 2003; the Columbia Plateau, Mountain Snake, Blue Mountain, and Middle Snake by November 2003; and the Columbia Cascade, Upper Snake, Lower Columbia and Estuary, and Mainstem by May 2004. Staffer Peter Paquet explained the proposal for providing technical support at the regional and state levels. At the regional level, staff recommends designating the Regional Assessment Advisory Committee (RAAC) as the group to provide technical support. Danielson noted that the RAAC “has been a mystery,” and Cassidy asked who serves on the committee. Staffer Chip McConnaha said he would provide a list of the members to the Council. Danielson asked about costs the RAAC imposes on the states, and McConnaha said the RAAC has a budget that is divided into five tasks. Two of the RAAC members are contractors, who are paid to participate, he said. Bloch asked about the schedule for data to be available to subbasin planners. Some of the information, especially that which is a prerequisite to subbasin planning, would be pretty immediate, Paquet said, adding that other information would continue to be developed over time. He said there are plans to have an Internet version of the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) data available for planners to use. Cassidy said he understood that StreamNet data lags three years behind. All of the data lags by a couple of years – that’s the state of things, Paquet responded. Subbasin planning has to be set up the way each state wants it, John Brogoitti said. The “founding principle” for this is that we are going to be flexible so the states can do things their own way, Bloch agreed. Each state is starting from a different point, and we don’t want to go in and compel people to set up new things or pay for work that is already done, he said. This is all based on a task-oriented approach, and that approach provides for flexibility and accountability that best fits the existing structure in the states, while bringing about consistent products, Bloch said. Because this is being done through funding from Bonneville, there is an important role for the tribes, he added. Allee called the Council’s attention to a letter from planners in the Inter-Mountain Province, which raises issues about developing the assessment data and the timeline for completing subbasin plans. He said staff would meet with representatives from the province March 18 to discuss the letter. Our intention is to get the contracts in place by May so the subbasin planners can begin this work, Allee said. What if a subbasin doesn’t finish a plan in two years? Cassidy asked. We’ve been open about the incentive to finish, Marker said. Project selection will be based on subbasin plans, and without a plan, there would be no new projects and just maintenance of those already under way, he said. “That could be dangerous,” Cassidy responded. Some interests could stall to keep competition for the project money at bay, he pointed out. Brogoitti said he saw a couple of “red flags” in the proposal, the first being concern about the role of the RAAC. I sat for three hours in a RAAC meeting, and they spent the entire time talking about what they wanted to talk about, he said. “Their value is questionable,” Brogoitti added. The other issue is the availability of StreamNet data – how can planners work with that kind of lag? he asked. Not having information on the fish runs for one or two years isn’t going to make that much difference, Cassidy responded. “Salmon recovery isn’t rocket science” – we just keep using the tools we have, he added. Cassidy commented that the Council needs to see more demonstrations of EDT. We are planning to present EDT demonstrations on March 15, Allee responded. He suggested the Council appoint a subcommittee to continue working on the details and getting the subbasin contracts in place. This is so big and difficult to convey, Danielson said. As we get into the contracting, we really have to coordinate all of this, “so we’re singing out of the same hymnal,” she stated. There is still a lot of confusion at the state level about how the states are going to integrate into the Council process, Kempton agreed. There is an overlapping structure in which the plans come from the states, but are reviewed and adopted by the Council, he said. That provides less flexibility than the states have in implementing the BiOp, and it could create problems later, especially with the responsibilities for BiOp implementation and funding, Kempton added. Ron Peters of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe questioned whether there would be adequate time to get the subbasin plans done by May 2003 for the Inter-Mountain province. He suggested the Council delay its rolling project reviews by a year, provide funding to bridge projects over another year, and allow more time for the subbasin plans to be reviewed and adopted. Ray Entz of the Kalispel Tribe said there is a problem with coordinating in subbasins that cross state lines, and he said the Council has not made a recommendation on how to resolve the question of tribal involvement in the subbasin planning process. Entz indicated that the tribes are being excluded from the early planning in the Inter-Mountain province. We just found out about this, Danielson responded. We need you to let us know about these things, she said. We’ve made it clear there has to be a balance, and there is no question on the Council about that, she said. Bloch said the Council’s commitment to involve the tribes is sincere, but for several reasons, there has been “a tilt” that is tending to favor the states at the expense of the tribes. We have to acknowledge and address that, he said. We need to have decisions that reflect partnership between the states and tribes – allowing for flexibility among the states cannot be allowed to lead to exclusion of the tribes, Bloch stated. I don’t accept as a general statement that the tribes are not being treated fairly in this process, Leo Giacometto said. I work closely with the tribes in our state, and that is not the case, he said. I agree, Entz said. We were speaking to specific situations, he added. Decision – Approval of Staff Approach Danielson made a motion that the Council approve the general approach and structure to contracting and technical support for subbasin planning presented by the staff. Bloch seconded the motion, which passed six to zero. Kempton and Brogoitti were absent when the vote was taken. 5. Council decision on call for amendments on subbasin planning
Decision – Approval to Call for Amendments Danielson made a motion that the Council approve release of a call for recommendations for amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Program in the form of subbasin plans, as presented by the staff, subject to final agreement between Bonneville and the Council regarding a subbasin planning budget and contracting structure. Brogoitti seconded the motion, which passed seven to zero. Kempton was absent when the vote was taken. 6. Council decision on process for selecting Fish Passage Center oversight board membership
Staffer Bruce Suzumoto outlined recommendations for selecting members to serve on the newly reconstituted oversight body for the Fish Passage Center (FPC). Staff suggests Larry Cassidy be designated to serve as the Council representative to the board and that the Council nominate individuals to fill the science and public-at-large seats, he said. In addition, staff recommends asking CBFWA to nominate a person to fill each of the two tribal and the non-tribal F&W manager seats, and asking NMFS to nominate an individual to fill the NMFS seat, Suzumoto explained. In order to get the board empaneled by April, we would like to get the nominations by March 22, he stated. Bloch suggested the Council undertake “a more global search” for the at-large seat. The Council also asked staff to bring back a recommendation on the length of the terms for board members. Decision – Approval of Selecting Members Danielson made a motion to approve the recommendation for selecting members for the FPC oversight board. Bartlett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 7. Council decision on Fiscal Year 2002 fish and wildlife funding reallocations:The Fish Committee has developed and recommended a data management protocol for the inventory and monitoring of F&W in the region and for counting salmonids, Paquet explained. The protocol was sent to CBFWA and the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) for an assessment, he said. An ISRP reviewer called the protocol “a good piece of work” and said the panel would approve it, but there were concerns about taking this project out of sequence for funding, Paquet reported. CBFWA has not yet responded, he said. The Council has been working with NMFS to develop the data system, Karier said. We signed a memorandum of agreement that says we will work together to get the system going, he added. The project is already under way, and this proposal would add $118,035 to continue the work – we should support and pass this, Karier urged. The Council voted unanimously to recommend Bonneville fund the data management protocol at the level of $118,035, contingent on ISRP approval. Danielson made a motion that the Council recommend Bonneville fund the data management protocols (1) for the inventory and monitoring of fish, wildlife and their habitats in the Pacific Northwest and (2) for counting salmonids, as presented by the staff and recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Committee. Karier seconded. Bloch proposed to amend the motion to include the amount of the funding request, $118,035. Bartlett seconded the motion to amend, and it passed unanimously. Brogoitti offered an amendment to make the funding recommendation contingent on CBFWA and ISRP approval, but that motion died for lack of a second. Kempton said he could support the Brogoitti amendment if it were revised to make the recommendation contingent only on ISRP approval. Brogoitti offered such a revised amendment, and it was seconded by Bartlett. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the amendment and voted unanimously to approve the motion as amended. - Facilitation for Regional Forum Marker explained a request to increase the funding for facilitation services for the Regional Forum from $73,414 to $154,000. The project sponsor and CBFWA believe this would correct an oversight in the original request, and they say that the project is critical in helping the parties come to consensus, he said. Danielson made a motion, seconded by Giacometto, that the Council recommend Bonneville provide an additional $50,000 for Project Number 199800800, Regional Forum Facilitation Services, as presented by the staff and recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Committee. The Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion 8. Public comment on the power plan issues paper (Council document 2002-01)Steve Weiss, Northwest Energy Coalition, called the fifth Power Plan the Council’s opportunity to take a leadership role on the region’s energy future. The industry “is in disarray,” he stated. Weiss told the Council it ought to look at the issues of market manipulation and market power abuse. FERC is unwilling to look at these issues, but they need attention, especially in view of the coming RTO, he said. There is good reason to think there have been abuses, according to Weiss, and he suggested that without improper manipulation, the market may actually be working fine. With regard to sustaining investment in conservation, Weiss pointed out that Bonneville’s partial requirements customers face a unique problem with funding conservation because the savings from these utilities’ efforts don’t come back to Bonneville. Since they are large entities, like EWEB and Seattle, we should come up with mechanisms to help them, he recommended. The issue of fish versus power operations goes beyond what should be done in an emergency, Weiss continued. We need to focus on how to avoid an emergency -- it’s not how to deal with the tradeoffs, but how to avoid having to make them, he said. Weiss recommended making fish operations “a harder constraint” on the system. The Council should look closely at the implications of slicing the federal system, he went on. How will conservation, renewables, and efficiency targets be met if Bonneville is not acquiring resources? Weiss asked. He suggested Slice customers are already influencing operations on the system to the disadvantage of fish. If customers are in control of the system, “it will be run according to dollars and cents,” but Bonneville has a broader responsibility, Weiss said. When you transfer control of the river via Slice, Bonneville has to maintain control, he urged. New publics should be able to form and buy preference power from Bonneville, Weiss stated, but one of the proposals to slice up the system would exclude new publics. The potential for a new public utility to be formed is an important check on private companies, he said. As for the DSIs, Weiss recommended the region “get creative” in accommodating their needs. The DSIs should face the price swings in the market, he said. Unlike electricity, you can store aluminum, so the DSIs could run when Bonneville is surplus, Weiss suggested. I don’t want to see the DSIs get a steady block of power, but you could give Bonneville the ability to ramp the companies up or cut them back, he said. We want Bonneville to be able to interrupt the DSIs for fish measures and for other reasons, Weiss concluded. 9. Briefing on Oregon’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
State agencies in Oregon and Washington are putting considerable effort into monitoring and evaluation (M&E) programs focused on providing statistically rigorous estimates on the status and trends in fish populations and their habitats, according to Kelly Moore and Bruce McIntosh of Oregon and Bruce Crawford of Washington. Moore, monitoring policy advisor for the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, said the M&E program aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds in restoring anadromous fish and habitat in the state. In 1996, Oregon began implementing a monitoring approach called EMAP, which stands for Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, he reported. Our goal is to link information from sites in the state to create a more powerful way of looking at the data, Moore said. How far along are you with implementing EMAP? Karier asked. We were able to implement the program quickly, Moore responded, adding that the multitude of dots on the map he was displaying are functioning monitoring sites. McIntosh provided additional details on EMAP, explaining that it is a national program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Prior to the Oregon Plan, we had M&E, but we concluded it was inadequate to meet the needs of recovery efforts, he said. That led to the state implementing EMAP, McIntosh explained. The program helps to answer questions related to population status and trends, as well as identify associations between various factors in the fish lifecycle, he indicated. We think EMAP can provide a consistent approach for M&E throughout the basin, McIntosh stated, and he said the ISRP strongly endorses EMAP. The cost of Oregon’s coastal monitoring program, using EMAP, is $2 million a year, McIntosh said. He estimated it would cost between $8 million and $15 million annually to operate the program basinwide in anadromous fish subbasins. Briefing on Washington Monitoring and Evaluation
Bruce Crawford, project manager for Washington Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery, described his state’s efforts to carry out legislation passed in 2001 to develop a comprehensive monitoring strategy. The scope of the project in Washington includes meeting Clean Water Act standards, he said. Crawford reported that 27 local, state, federal, and tribal agencies are involved in the effort. We will probably recommend EMAP be adopted as the approach in Washington, he said. Crawford outlined the elements of an effective M&E program. He indicated the Washington program needs to focus on measuring things that determine whether the state’s strategy is working for salmon recovery. A key element of the work is focused on creating a common framework for all agencies to use in monitoring salmon recovery investments, Crawford indicated. A final report on the project is due out in December 2002, he said. We understand that the federal agencies have been meeting to develop a uniform, comprehensive M&E program, Bloch said. The message here is that “this is not a blank slate,” he stated. A lot of effort has already gone into this and that effort could be built upon, Bloch said. It’s important that we get the M&E people from Oregon and Washington together with the feds to design a basinwide program that builds on what we already have, he advised. 10. Presentation on Western Regional Air Partnership
Bill Edmonds of PacifiCorp reported on the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is aimed at protecting the scenic vistas in the nation’s National Parks and Wilderness areas. WRAP has in its sights identifying sources of the “regional haze” that affect the view in places like the Grand Canyon and figuring out what to do about them, he said. Natural sources, like water vapor and forest fires, contribute to the haze, but there are also human activities, including cars and power generation, that add to the problem, Edmonds explained. WRAP is a voluntary organization that evolved from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, he said. Its members are federal agencies, tribes, states, and stakeholders, and the partnership works by consensus, according to Edmonds. Based on recommendations in the commission’s 1996 report, WRAP has negotiated milestones for reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions, he said. So long as the region stays below the targets, “things are okay,” but if at any time, we don’t meet the targets, a cap and a trading program in emissions take effect, Edmonds explained. EPA has proposed a rule for attacking regional haze nationally, and in it, the federal agency recognized the work that has been undertaken in the West, he said. We were worried that the federal arm would “sweep through” without consideration of our hard work for the last decade, but it looks like the Administration has acknowledged the WRAP work, Edmonds reported. All Western states except Nevada are WRAP participants, and under the federal rule, each state has the option of submitting its own plans, he said. 11. Update on the project selection process proposal
Kempton said four Council members have been working on a proposal to change the process by which F&W projects are selected for funding. The purpose is to make the project review process consistent with subbasin planning, Karier said. It would move more responsibility for prioritizing projects to the local subbasin level, he added. Is this an amendment to the F&W program? Cassidy asked. We can evaluate that, staffer John Ogan responded. Under the current process, CBFWA ranks the projects for funding recommendations, Ray Ennis of the Kalispel Tribe said. CBFWA has provided regional consistency in project selection, and the loss of that consistency would hurt the F&W program, he contended. I don’t see this as a simple process that will be done in four weeks, Kempton stated. He suggested getting some public review and going through another iteration of the proposal. When would we adopt it? Cassidy asked, adding that the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission has asked for three months notice on small changes, “let alone a blockbuster like this. “We have an obligation to see that the F&W agencies and tribes have a chance to make input,” Cassidy stated, noting that tribal consultation may be needed. Decision – Release project selection proposal for comments Bloch moved that the Council release the project selection proposal for 90 days of comment. Kempton seconded. The motion passed on a unanimous vote 12. Briefing on federal agency budget proposals for Fiscal Year 2003
Staffer Mark Walker outlined the FY 2002-2003 appropriations federal agencies have received from Congress for Columbia River basinwide salmon recovery. The FY 2003 total of $219.4 million is spread among nine agencies, and an additional $286.7 million will be directly funded by Bonneville, he said. Congress has also appropriated $130 million for coastal salmon recovery, bringing the regional total to $636 million, Walker reported. The largest chunk of the appropriations ($128.2 million) is for the Corps of Engineers, he pointed out, with the lion’s share allocated to fish passage improvements at eight federal dams. The Corps has a pretty good budget this year, which includes the only construction start Congress approved for a Corps project in the nation, Walker said. 13. Council decision on schedule and update on process for mainstem amendments to the fish and wildlife program
Staffer John Shurts explained that the Council would not complete its mainstem amendment process within the statutory limit of one year from the time recommendations are submitted. The deadline for the recommendations was June 15, 2001, so under the law, the amendments must be completed by June 15, 2002, according to a staff memo. Shurts pointed out that the study done by Dr. Al Giorgi is still open for comment and that the notice on the Council’s web site may have misstated that information. Decision – Recommend an extension of time in the Mainstem amendment process Danielson made a motion that the Council find that an extension of time in the Mainstem amendment process, beyond a year from the date when the recommendations were submitted, is necessary and justified for the reasons stated in the staff memorandum of February 27,2002; that the Council approve the amended schedule for completing the process as presented by the staff; and that the Council direct staff to give appropriate notice of the Council’s action. Bloch seconded the motion. Shurts read into the record the following rationale for the extension: The staff recommends that the Council adopt this schedule for completion, even if beyond the one-year date. The power system operational issues in the last year have been extraordinary. This diverted the Council and relevant staff away from being able to give the level of attention to the mainstem plan recommendations that they deserve. More important, this has meant that the Council, staff, and the public have needed more time than usual to understand the general system planning issues in the context of the reliability crisis of the last year. The Council has not been dilatory; the members and staff have worked consistently on the mainstem plan recommendations and related mainstem issues since receiving the recommendations. Even so, it is not possible to complete the mainstem amendment process by mid-June 2002 and provide sufficient consideration and public attention to the recommended amendments. The motion passed unanimously. 14. Council business:- Update on Council budget schedule and process Staffer Jim Tanner said the Council will release its revised FY 2003 budget for comment in May and adopt a final budget at its August meeting. The current FY 2003 budget is $8.4 million, he said. Are there discussions going on with Bonneville about our budget level? Brogoitti asked. Yes, Tanner acknowledged. The Council’s budget is based on Bonneville’s firm load sales, and the forecast for those sales has been moving around a lot, he explained. There are differing views on how that will end up, but there are implications for our budget, Tanner said. The variations in the forecasts for firm sales translate to a range of $7.9 million to $9.2 million for the Council’s budget, he added. Decision – Approval of January Council Minutes Danielson made a motion that the Council approve for the signature of the vice chair the minutes for the January Council meeting held in Vancouver, Washington. Brogoitti seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. |
|||||
