PG&E Study Looks at British Columbia Run-of-River Projects as Potential Green Energy for California

On June 20, 2008 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) produced the attached BC Renewable Study Phase I report. In 2007, the California Public Utilities Commission approved D.07-03-013, which grants PG&E the authority to recover up to $14 million for external consultants to study the feasibility of obtaining renewable power from various regions in British Columbia (BC) and the potential to transmit this power to PG&E’s service area.

As reported earlier, independent power producers (IPP’s) have applied for permits for more than 500 dams on more than 300 rivers and streams in BC. Unlike the United States, Canada’s regulatory structure for hydropower dams does not allow meaningful public participation, and river activists and outdoor recreationists are just getting organized to fight these new dams, some of which are already under construction.

The PG&E report changes the equation regarding Canadian hydroelectric power being sold to US markets, as IPP’s have long argued that the power produced from local resources would remain in BC. It also affects US Consumers in two ways: 1. in our need to be involved and educated about BC river issues, and 2. Potential future changes to California’s existing Renewable Portfolio Standard, and to new National Portfolio Standards which may be established after the upcoming election.

For BC river interests, the study provides good educational ammunition against many of the claims by the IPP’s. The report demonstrates that:

• BC has an existing surplus of energy
• Run-of-river projects are not the green source IPP’s have claimed (and would not meet California’s definition of clean, green and renewable*).
• Hydroelectric power produced by BC rivers will not be used exclusively in BC.
• Dealing with IPP’s vs. a centralized BC Hydro is not a benefit for outside purchasers like PG&E.

* “Based upon PG&E’s initial research, BC Run-Of-River hydro facilities would not be qualified as RPS eligible resources.” Under California legislation, hydro generation facilities are RPS-eligible if they meet all of the following criteria:

• Do not cause a change in volume or timing of stream flow;
• Are less than or equal to 30 MW; and
• Do not cause an adverse impact on instream beneficial uses.

The study also changes the equation for US river advocates and consumers as well. What is our responsibility to protect river resources beyond our borders, especially if our need for energy results in resource impacts elsewhere? And perhaps a moral obligation, not to get involved with BC regulations, but to take the lessons learned through our work on US rivers and uses these lessons to protect rivers regardless of location? More specifically, the report provides an alert for potential future changes in:

• California’s definition of renewable hydropower

• Modifications to existing RPS rules (CA and elsewhere) that would make importing energy from other areas more viable.

• Legislative changes regarding new small hydro generation.