HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 6 20031
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 6, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon
Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. PRESENTATION BY BRITISH PETROLEUM CONCERNING
COGENERATION FACILITY (AB2003 -178)
Mike Torpey, British Petroleum (BP) cogeneration plant permit coordinator,
showed slides of the plant site.
Roy asked what the square footage of the area is. Torpey stated the total
area is about 33 acres. The project site is 22 acres. The stacks are 150 feet tall.
The key feature is cogeneration plant, which actually feed steams into a
steam hose at the refinery. This project has a net reduction in overall air emissions
and water usage. Noise increases are inaudible. The project is located on BP-
owned property. Existing refinery infrastructure will be used. There is close
transmission access, which is less than a mile away.
Cogeneration is more efficient than a standalone plant. It reduces the
refinery energy usage. It insulates the refinery from volatile power costs. There is
a net reduction of 140 tons per year of air emissions. There will be lower
greenhouse gas emissions.
The cogeneration steam would allow refinery utility boilers to shutdown,
which would provide a net reduction in air emissions. They get a substantial in
NOx, but increases in CO, VOC, PMIo, and SOZ. Because of the large reduction in
NOx, they also expect a net reduction in particulate emissions, considering both
primary and secondary particulate. The primary particulate is what is in the stack.
The secondary particulate is that which forms far outside the stack. Given the large
reduction in NOx, they also expect a reduction in primary and secondary particulate
of 81 tons per year.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
They began to discuss a water re -use project developed through the
Whatcom Public Utilities District (PUD), Alcoa Intalco, and the cogeneration project.
Following a $2 million capital investment, they could capture industrial water from
Alcoa and pump it into the line to the refinery to feed BP and Alcoa. The project
enables the cogeneration plant to incorporate water cooling, which is more efficient
than air cooling. Annually, the amount of water available is more than what the
cogeneration plant needs. They can reduce the need to withdraw water from the
Nooksack River by 700,000 gallons per day. The Whatcom PUD would own and
operate the reuse project.
Roy asked if the water reduction is based on the current use of Alcoa and all
of Cherry Point. Torpey stated it is. Water from Alcoa would be diverted from its
wastewater system and into a sump pump for the cogeneration project. From
there, it is mostly evaporated. The wastewater from the cooling tower goes to the
refinery's wastewater system. Overall, the cogeneration needs about 3.2 million
gallons per day. The amount of water from Alcoa is about 4 million gallons per day.
Ninety percent of the water that is fed into the cogeneration plant is evaporated
through the cooling process. Because solids build up in the water from the cooling
tower, some of it has to be released into the refinery where it is treated in the
wastewater treatment system. The cogeneration plant wastewater stream is about
200 gallons per minute.
Roy asked the net increase of discharge into the Sound.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it is 300,000 gallons per day.
Torpey stated the increase is around 200 gallons per minute, which goes into
the Sound through the wastewater treatment system. This water coming from the
PUD into Alcoa is used once. Four million gallons per day go through Alcoa today,
which goes into the Sound.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is no guarantee Alcoa will be in business.
Fleetwood asked if there is no net increase in water taken from the Nooksack
River in this project. Torpey stated that is correct, on an annual basis. There may
be periods of time, during the hottest day where they go slightly over four million
gallons. Cogeneration water needs increase as the weather gets warmer.
Roy stated that if Alcoa is no longer there, the cogeneration plant would still
draw less water from the Nooksack River than is currently being drawn. Torpey
stated the amount of water from PUD will be the same, regardless of whether Alcoa
stays operating or not. If not, the water will bypass Alcoa from the PUD and go
straight to the cogeneration plant.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they will have to make a decision in the future if
another company chooses to locate at the Alcoa site. They may not be able to
allow any other industry there, if the water goes to the cogeneration plant.
Fleetwood asked what happens to the water rights if Alcoa leaves. Torpey
stated the water rights belong to the Whatcom PUD. Alcoa contracts with the PUD
for the water. If Alcoa closes, the water will still be there.
Regarding noise, they have done some studies. There were 15 noise -
monitoring sites. Five of the locations were chosen for additional studies. They
first determined the current background noise level at each location. Next, they
modeled the predicted noise level from the cogeneration plant at each location.
One location, at Birch Bay Village, will have no cumulative noise increase because
the plant noise, at 23 dBA, is less than the existing background noise at 35 dBA.
Roy asked about the low frequencies. Torpey stated dBA is the level that
humans hear. He will provide information on the low frequency modeling, which
are well below standards.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there would be mitigation for noise to nearby
developments. Torpey stated they might do additional noise monitoring. He
explained the monitoring process. The net noise change at Jackson Road was zero.
At Blaine Road and Bay Road, the change is modeled at an increase of two dBA. At
Bay Road and Kickerville Road, the change is modeled at an increase of three dBA
At Kickerville Road and Brown Road, the change is modeled at an increase of four
dBA. An increase of three dBA could only be heard in a quiet laboratory setting,
not in a non - controlled setting. The people who do the monitoring include data
from actual equipment that is running. They've found that their estimates are one
to three decibels lower in actual practice than their estimates.
Roy suggested that they try to do additional monitoring over a longer period
of time. Her observation is that the noise level goes up and down. There could be
three quiet days.
She asked about the Birch Bay Village background noise. Torpey stated the
background noise at Birch Bay Village was 35 dBA.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the time of year the monitoring was done. Torpey
stated it was done three or four weeks ago, from a Tuesday night to Friday
morning. Increases of less than 5 dBA are essentially inaudible. The highest
predicted cumulative noise increase is about four.
He showed graphs of the proposed plant location in relation to wetlands.
The total area is about 69 acres. About half is impacted wetlands. Thirty acres of
wetlands will be permanently impacted, and five acres will be temporarily impacted.
The wetland mitigation area is north of the refinery and cogeneration plant. The
area is 117 acres altogether. There are three goals in mind for wetland mitigation.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The first is restoring historic hydrology. Stormwater that would have flowed to the
northwest will be routed across Grandview and onto the mitigation site. The
second goal is controlling reed canary grass, a nonnative, invasive weed. They will
initially control it by cutting and spraying. In the long -term, shading will control it.
They will grow native trees and shrubs that compete against reed canary grass.
The third goal is habitat. They will provide additional habitat on the 117 acres.
Roy asked if the mitigation plans have to have a lot of oversight by people
with expertise. Torpey stated those are things that are included in the mitigation
plan. The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the wetland approvals. The
County is part of that process. The Department of Ecology is also involved.
Fleetwood asked the connectivity between mitigation sites one and two,
across Blaine Road. Torpey stated it is not connected. There is no hydrological
connection.
The advantage for the refinery is having a stable source of heat and power.
On the basis of a $580 million project, the estimated tax benefits to Whatcom
County are around $10 million during construction and $4.6 million during
operation. Job opportunities during construction include 676 construction jobs at
the peak. There will be about 370 jobs over the course of two years. During
operations, there will be 30 additional jobs. In addition, it will have indirect
benefits to local business that supply materials, supplies, and services to the
facility.
The location of the facility is on heavy impact industrial zoned land and on
BP property. It is close to the things it needs, such as natural gas and transmission
line access. There is a net reduction in emissions. No standalone plant can do
that. There is a net reduction in water usage because of the project with the PUD
and Alcoa. There will be lower greenhouse gas emissions because they are
reducing the emissions from the refinery. It is a large source of tax revenue for the
County. There will be low needs for County resources to support it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the cogeneration plant will allow BP to reduce
emissions at other refinery operations. Someone mentioned that the Potential for
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit was submitted without the offset features.
Torpey stated that typically, emission reductions are used to net out of PSD. If
there are enough reductions, they don't do a PSD permit. The only other place to
use emission reduction is in a non - attainment area. They are in attainment for all
the emissions. They did the PSD permit without the benefit of emission reductions.
That means they did all the modeling and calculated the emissions for the PSD
permit on the basis of not using any emissions offsets or reductions for the
refinery. They found they are well within all the State and federal standards for
emissions from this facility, even without emission offsets.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they will permanently reduce emissions at other
refinery operations. Torpey stated there are three older utility boilers that will be
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
decommissioned. Other boilers will be down, but available to run if necessary.
There are two other heaters that will be converted from fire to steam. In those
cases, the two gas fired heaters will also be shut down. They will not run while the
cogeneration plant is running.
Roy stated the plant requires 85 megawatts to run, with two backup
systems, each 85 megawatts. That still totals less than 300 megawatts for two
backups and to run the plant. Torpey stated there are a number of reasons for the
size. One reason is for reliability. If one system is down for plan maintenance and
another system were to shut down inadvertently, there is still one running, which
can supply the plant with heat and power needs. Another reason for the size is due
to economies of scale. They need a project this size to make it viable. Also, the
most efficient gas turbines available make the project more efficient. They are of a
certain size.
Roy asked if the plant will be run by BP. Torpey stated that hasn't been
determined yet. At this point, TransCanada is the developer and BP owns the land.
BP would like to run it, but the decision is up to TransCanada.
Roy asked if there will be a guarantee that the power is going to stay in this
country, since a Canadian company owns it, which brings up the question of
transmission lines. Torpey stated he couldn't speak to where they are going to
market the power. There is an offer to Alcoa and to the local utilities. They don't
have any answers now about where the long -term power contracts will go. Right
now, 85 megawatts are slated for the refinery, and they are looking for long -term
contracts elsewhere.
Fleetwood asked why a project needs to be a certain size to be viable.
Torpey stated they looked hard at developing a smaller facility. It doesn't pay out
economically.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what pollutants from the cogeneration plant present
the greatest concern for public health, based on ambient modeling. Torpey stated
a significant reduction in NOx makes that concern go away. Primary and secondary
particulates will be lower than they are today. All that are left are VOC, CO, and
SOZ. Of the three, he doesn't know the relative health effects. Modeling shows
that they are well below ambient air quality standards and significant impact levels.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are any noticeable trans - boundary impacts.
Torpey stated they've modeled into Canada. They've spread out receptor locations
for air modeling work, which doesn't stop at the border. They also looked at
visibility. There will be no effect on visibility.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they considered Sumas Energy 2's output when
they did the modeling. Torpey stated they did not. The maximum impact occurs at
the border, because the impacts are reduced as they go farther across the border.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The maximum impact is in the states, closer to the facility. The maximum impact
in Canada is right at the border. The actual impact at the border is low.
Roy stated the first reports listed the particulate matter as very high. Now,
the particulates are shown as lower, so there is a net reduction. Torpey stated that
is correct, considering both primary and secondary particulates. The particulate
level, measured with the standard Environmental Protection Act (EPA) reference
method, is in error. A study done by General Electric (GE) found that the
particulate in the stack is measured in filterable and condensable. The filterable
part is in the stack, and the condensable is just outside the stack. Of the total
particulate measured, nine percent is filterable and 91 percent is condensable. Of
the condensable particulate, six percent is organic, three percent is characterized
as other, and 91 percent are inorganic.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Torpey continued to state that, of the 91 percent that is inorganic, 26
percent is characterized as other and 74 percent was sulfates, chloride, ammonia,
sodium, and calcium, which comes in from the inlet air. The most significant piece
is the SO4. SOZ is being drawn into the sampling equipment and converted to SO4,
which is much heavier, and then is being measured as a particulate. This is causing
the most error in the EPA reference method test. Sixty percent of the particulate
being measured is stuff that shouldn't be there in the first place. It is coming in
through the inlet air or is coming in as a gas and converted to a particulate in the
sampling equipment. EPA recognizes that they have a purge at the end of the test
to get rid of the SO4. In this case, the test is made for stacks that have a much
higher particulate loading, such as those that are coal- fired. This test was not
made to measure particulates from gas turbines. In a coal -fired test, this error is
not significant. It is for a gas -fired turbine. They will get rid of this measurement
as part of the testing they do in the plant.
Roy asked if the change in numbers is not a change in technology, but a
change in calculation. Torpey stated that is correct.
Roy asked if the EPA formula is not appropriate for this kind of plant. Torpey
stated that is correct. In the PSD permit, the State Department of Ecology will
make them use this reference method test. They will include this number in the
PSD modeling. Including this and by using no emission reductions, they still meet
the State and local standards for particulate impacts. They did not use the
reduction in the modeling. They expect it to just be there.
Roy asked if that number is still within the standards, even though it is a
significant increase over what they have now. Torpey stated that is correct.
Fleetwood asked if the County has any other regulatory oversight role, other
than being interveners. Torpey stated it is up to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council ( EFSEC). EFSEC has preemptive authority over all State and local permits.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Typically, EFSEC involves local planning and development folks for oversight and
evaluation. It is ultimately up to EFSEC. EFSEC has jurisdiction over air and water
permits, but contracts with the Department of Ecology to do the air and water
reviews. Ultimately, that authority also rests with EFSEC.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are proposing emission control technology
equal to or better than the effectiveness of the Sumas Energy 2 project. Torpey
stated they are using the same control technology. The levels BP is proposing for
NOx is 2.5 parts per million (ppm) at 15 percent OZ, and the levels for carbon
monoxide is 2.0 ppm at 15 percent OZ.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this project will impact the already- threatened
herring runs on Cherry Point. Torpey stated they don't expect it to. It has very
similar wastewater stream characteristics as they have today. The increase in flow
from the cogeneration plant comes primarily from the cooling tower, which uses the
same cooling water as the two cooling towers used at the refinery today. They
both use PUD water. It comes from Alcoa, but it doesn't have any contaminants in
it. It is similar water that they will find in the refinery wastewater treatment
system, and there will be a slight increase in volume that goes into the bay.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it was mentioned that the cooling water picks up
sediments. She asked the treatment process it will go through. Torpey stated the
contaminants it picks up in the cooling tower is just the dust that is in the air and
the suspended solids that are in the water in the first place, from the PUD. There
are still some solids in the water from the PUD. When the water evaporates off
from the cooling tower, it leaves the solids behind. That is the kind of material that
is already in the river, it is just more concentrated.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about water temperature. It was mentioned that
the cooling towers are very warm, which is why 90 percent of the water
evaporates. She asked if the byproduct will be warm, also. Torpey stated the
wastewater going into the refinery wastewater system has a long residence time
before going out into the bay. They monitor the final effluent continuously.
Fleetwood asked if the increase in volume not affecting the herring
populations has been actively studied. Torpey stated a study for this project
included a biological evaluation. It included a discussion on the potential marine
impacts. They've also looked at a potential change in refinery permit parameters
that they monitor as part of the refinery National Pollution Discharge and
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. There will be minor, one percent, increases
that they will be monitoring. There will be a slight increase in flow, by eight
percent. Considering the biological evaluation, the level of contaminants there
now, and the slight increase, they don't expect any impact on the marine
environment.
Roy asked who they are discussing this with. Torpey stated part of the
revised application includes a section called the biological evaluation. It is also
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
included in the permit. There is a discussion about the marine environment in that
evaluation. It will be part of the review the Corps and Department of Ecology will
go through.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if BP needs to construct new transmission lines for
the excess power produced, and if BP or TransCanada sell power to Intalco or any
other entity in Whatcom County at a discounted rate. Torpey stated the
interconnection will require new lines from the cogeneration plant to the existing
power lines that go from the Custer substation to Alcoa, which will total about
three - quarters of a mile to connect to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
grid. There are a number of options for that. The first is a remedial action scheme
for Alcoa. Rather than building new lines or putting in a double circuit, they are
looking at a logics system. The second option is putting in a double line, which will
change the towers out from the interconnect point to the Custer substation so a
second set of lines can be put in. That is not their primary option.
Roy asked for an explanation of the relative size of those towers. Torpey
stated he doesn't know yet.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the power would be sold locally at a discounted
rate. Torpey stated he didn't know. They are working with Alcoa to sell power, but
nothing has been finalized.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they considered other, better air pollution control
technologies than the one proposed, and then reject them. Torpey stated they did.
Part of the PSD requirement is doing that analysis. They looked at other
technologies, which he explained. One technology has been used on very small
facilities, and was not proven technologically for a plant of this size. Also, it
provides nearly the same level of control as the technologies they've chosen.
Caskey- Schreiber asked why they switched to a water -based system for the
cooling towers, and if it will be noisier. Torpey stated they don't expect it to be
noisier. Water cooling allows the plant to be more efficient, by a couple of
percentage points. The air cooler is a very large structure that stands higher in the
air. It is less expensive.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is more efficient in terms of the power that it
uses. Torpey stated it allows the plant to run more efficiently overall. The purpose
of the cooler is to take low pressure steam out of the turbine and condense it into
water for the steam boilers. The water cooler allows the steam turbine to run more
efficiently, due to the outlet pressure on the steam turbine.
Fleetwood asked for a brief explanation of how the system works. Torpey
showed how the system works and the purpose for each structure, using a graphic
rendering of the proposed plant.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked if they hope to not see the plant from the road when the
trees grow. Torpey stated he wouldn't expect to see the plant. The trees are all
poplar trees at this point, so they need to get some evergreen trees in there.
There won't be trees in the neighboring utility corridor, so the plant will be seen
from the intersection of Blaine Road and Grandview Road.
Roy asked if the 150 -foot towers are the tallest part of the facility. Torpey
stated they are. The substation will be low. The stacks are the highest point of the
cogeneration plant itself. He doesn't remember how tall the transmission towers
are.
Roy asked if they anticipate all three running at the same time, and if the
noise modeling was done based on all three running at the same time. Torpey
stated they do anticipate running all three, and they did model for noise based on
everything running.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they intend to have mitigation measures for noise,
light, and traffic during construction. Torpey stated it is proposed with the
Department of Transportation to have eastbound and westbound turn lanes at the
main construction entrance. It won't be needed during operation. There is also the
potential for a traffic light at Portal Way and Grandview, next to the railroad tracks.
They haven't finalized anything yet.
They need some lighting for general operation at night. It should be directed
into the areas it is needed, not into the general community. It will be focused
lighting.
The vegetative buffer will include evergreen trees. A number of things are
incorporated into the project to mitigate for noise. There are stack silencers. Each
of the gas turbines is in an enclosure. The steam turbine is in an enclosure. The
steam pipes are well insulated. The water treatment facility is inside a building.
There are at least a dozen noise attenuation that are part of the design.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the plant will be lit all night long, and if they plan
to use low filter lighting. Torpey stated he doesn't have that level of detail yet.
Roy asked if the towers are tall enough to need the lights on the top. Torpey
stated they are not.
Roy stated the refinery is not necessarily visible from the road, but is from
down the road. She asked if there have been any talks about carbon credits that
are available in Whatcom County for mitigation. Torpey stated they haven't
determined detailed carbon reductions at this point. The application has two
possibilities. One possibility was that BP would own the facility. That is no longer
the case. The other possibility is to propose the standard similar to the Oregon
standard for greenhouse gas offsets in a number of ways, such as paying into a
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
climate trust or looking for carbon offsets. There have been conversations with
people who provide carbon offsets, but they don't have anything confirmed.
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District #1, stated Mr. Torpey doesn't know this,
but the PUD has had discussions with refinery personnel about carbon offset in
Whatcom County in regards to the biogas project that they've been working on with
Cooperative Extension.
Roy stated she might have more questions in the future, especially about
discharge into the Strait and the number of toxins. The BP refinery and Intalco are
the top three and four in the state in terms of what is going into the Sound. That is
complicated and technical. She wants to get a handle on that at a later date. At
Cherry Point, there is a study going on regarding the herring. Some of that is of
interest to her. Torpey stated he would be happy to go into more details.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed that the project would be more palatable if they
offered some kind of offset mitigation in the county. The biogas alternative is
worth looking into. Torpey stated he would look into it.
Fleetwood asked when this would be built. Torpey stated they desire to start
construction in early 2004. It is a two -year construction timeframe.
Roy stated Mr. Torpey continues to speak for this project. She asked when
the project will be handed over to TransCanada because it is no longer a BP project.
Torpey stated BP is working cooperatively with TransCanada, but they haven't
signed an agreement. BP will always have some level of involvement because it is
closely associated with the refinery.
Greg Moffett, TransCanada Government Relations Senior Manager, stated
this is BP's project from the start. As TransCanada comes in as the developer, BP
will continue on contract with TransCanada through the EFSEC process. Once the
permit is issued, it will be issued in TransCanada's name. The operation still hasn't
been negotiated.
TransCanada is the largest owner and operator of combustion turbine
engines in North America. The majority of the power business, 4,200 megawatts of
power total, is cogeneration. Cogeneration is low cost and efficient. Day to day
operations haven't been decided. TransCanada's area of expertise is with the
turbines.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if TransCanada is involved with any of the potential
plants on Vancouver Island and, if so, would TransCanada give up on its efforts to
put power plants on Vancouver Island so they can get rid of the GSX pipeline.
Moffett stated TransCanada has interest in British Columbia in terms of generation.
B.C. Hydro is trying to take the GSX project and Dew Point project through. It's a
question of 450 megawatts of power that would be available for purchase from this
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
facility. TransCanada is working with BP to market this power. They've had
conversations with several of the PUD's and investor -owned utilities. It's not
unrealistic that they would also talk to B.C. Hydro about sourcing some of their
power for this facility.
Fleetwood asked if TransCanada would bring in its own employees or remain
local. Moffett stated they would hire employees locally. There would be project
management staff that would help in terms of overseeing construction. The labor
would be sourced locally to the greatest extent possible.
TransCanada is in the gas transmission and power generation business. It is
a leading North American energy company, focused on those two core businesses.
They transport about 11 billion cubic feet of gas per day. They move around 65
percent of the Western Canadian sedimentary base in production. About 60
percent of that gas is exported to U.S. markets.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they would transport gas to their own power plant
down here. Moffett stated some of the gas would be sourced through BP's Ferndale
pipeline. They are looking for other commercial operations to source the natural
gas.
They have 24,000 miles of pipeline across North America. A majority of the
gas goes across Canada and into the U.S. northeast markets. They use large -
diameter, cold weather natural gas pipeline construction. They are a leading
builder and operator of large gas turbines. They have in excess of 350 gas turbines
on the system. In respective pipeline management and control, they have the
largest and most sophisticated remote control pipeline in North America.
He compared TransCanada's capacity in terms of miles with other companies
in the U.S. They are the largest natural gas transportation company in North
America. The power portfolio includes 19 plants in North America, and 1,800
megawatts are in development.
They have a broad understanding of continental markets, opportunities, and
competitors, which lead them to focus on cogeneration as a niche.
Caskey- Schreiber asked when they entered into this arrangement with BP.
Moffett stated it was in the last 18 months when BP began to look for a developer.
At this point, the final agreement hasn't been signed yet.
Mark Moore, BP Cogeneration Project Manager, stated BP initially intended to
build this project itself. There was a change in business direction regarding
cogenerators, but the need for a cogenerator at Cherry Point did not go away. BP
looked for people to develop the project. BP selected TransCanada at the end of
2002. In January, they entered into an exclusive development arrangement. They
hope to get to commercial closing sometime in early August. BP is still deeply
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
involved in the EFSEC process because it is still carrying the project forward. There
is not a signed agreement between the two companies.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she suspected the reason it is economically viable
to build a 750 - megawatt plant is to appease TransCanada, not for BP's needs.
Moore stated BP thought about the size of the project since the very beginning.
The decision was made because of the reliability of steam to the refinery and
selecting efficient gas turbines. It happens to come out that it's a large size plant.
TransCanada is looking to build good cogenerators at sites that have good long-
term potential.
Moffett stated this cogeneration plant generates low -cost power. Generating
the same amount of electricity from a combined cycle plant could not be done at a
low cost. From a corporate perspective, TransCanada wants to invest in a plant
that will always be running. From a consumer perspective, it generates low cost
power. If the alternative is combined cycle, this is the better alternative.
Roy thanked the presenters.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2003, Page 12