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

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

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

4. Northwest Power and Conservation Council slide 4

5. Northwest Power and Conservation Council slide 5 Canadian Outflows for Power and Flood Control on Planning Basis

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

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

8. 2014/2024 Review Columbia River Treaty U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Bonneville Power Administration

9. Northwest Power and Conservation Council Why the 2014/2024 Columbia Treaty Review? (a) Flood control changes in 2024 Assured systematic flood control operations last only 60 years ( to 2024) – –thereafter flood control will be provided at Treaty reservoirs in Canada only when “called upon” – –conditioned on effective use of US storage first and on compensation for economic losses slide 9

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

11. Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia River Treaty and salmon/ecosystem considerations? Ecosystem functions and salmon and other fish and wildlife needs: Integrated into the domestic law and policy governing river management on both sides of the border after 1960, but not formally part of the Treaty (altho see supplemental agreements) slide 11

12. Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2014/2024 Review: Regional Engagement Planin the United States Sovereign Review Team: 1. United States agencies: (BPA, USACE, NMFS, USFWS, BOR, BLM, EPA, USFS, USGS, BIA, NPS) 2. States: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana 3. Northwest Indian Tribes: 5 representatives (USRT, CRITFC, UCUT, Cowlitz, CSKT) Northwest Stakeholders: Regional Listening Sessions Listening sessions directly between the SRT and regional stakeholders and technical experts Public engagement?

13. Northwest Power and Conservation Council slide 13