Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedoroff

DECISION COMING – Yukon Energy president Andrew Hall says the Crown corporation hopes to decide before the end of the year whether to pursue additional storage of water in the Southern Lakes for hydro generation.

Yukon Energy to discuss water storage with residents

Yukon Energy wants to make a decision by the end of the year regarding whether it should pursue additional storage in the Southern Lakes, says the corporation’s president.

By Chuck Tobin on March 3, 2015

Yukon Energy wants to make a decision by the end of the year regarding whether it should pursue additional storage in the Southern Lakes, says the corporation’s president.

Andrew Hall said continued assessment of the proposal will involve one-to-one meetings with approximately 51 residents of the Southern Lakes whose waterfront properties are most affected by shoreline erosion.

The intent is to make a recommendation to Yukon Energy’s board of directors whether to proceed with environmental screening and the required approval from the Yukon Water Board to amend its existing water licence, Hall explained.

He said if Yukon Energy decides to proceed with additional storage, it expects it will have the necessary approval to raise lake levels an additional 30 centimetres (11.8 inches) by the fall of 2017.

The publicly owned utility is also seeking approval to draw down the lake level by an additional 10 cm (four inches) in the spring when the availability of water for generation at the Whitehorse Rapids Dam is at its lowest, Hall explained.

“In many years, the natural water level you see in the Southern Lakes naturally exceeds the 30 centimetres we are proposing,” he said.

The proposal, however, has raised opposition from the Southern Lakes Water Level Committee, which was formed specifically to gather local input and independent scientific data from research paid for by Yukon Energy.

Committee spokeswoman Deb Fulmer said this morning the body of the committee’s report detailing its opposition to the proposal was delivered to Yukon Energy in early February.

“It pretty much says don’t do it, don’t change the levels any more than they have and pursue alternative energy options,” she said, adding she did not have time to talk at length because of other commitments.

Fulmer did say the results of an official community survey have not yet been compiled, but will be.

Then they’ll become an appendix to the report, though the body of the report and its recommendations will not change.

The Yukon Energy president said the Crown corporation is not looking for consent from the 51 or so property owners staff plan to meet with.

What they want is feedback and the opportunity to explain options to provide shoreline protection against existing erosion related to climate change, which Yukon Energy is prepared to undertake as part of the proposal for additional storage, he said.

Hall said staff will also present property owners with options to protect against basement flooding, which the corporation is prepared to undertake.

Yukon Energy will need agreement from the Carcross-Tagish and Kwanlin Dun First Nations to go forward with the project, he said.

Hall said Yukon Energy has spent about $5 million so far exploring and studying the Southern Lakes proposal.

If the project proceeds, the final cost will be between $10 million and $12 million, including the cost of stabilizing a total of 1.5 kilometres of shoreline in six specific areas, as well as the basement protection work, he said.

Hall said $10 million to $12 million is still a very reasonable price for enough additional hydro generation to power 600 to 800 homes for a year.

The most cost-effective energy is the additional energy that can be squeezed out of existing assets, he said.

Hall said having the additional storage would displace approximately 5,600 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Yukon Energy has said in the past the increased storage could save up to $2 million a year in the diesel generation which has been fairly regular this winter when temperatures have been the lowest.

Yukon Energy spokeswoman Janet Patterson said this morning she couldn’t say whether the need for diesel generation would have been eliminated this winter had the additional storage been available, because nobody’s done the calculation.

“It is fair to say if we had more water, we would not have had to burn as much diesel,” she said.

Hall emphasized while Yukon Energy wants to meet one-on-one with the lakefront property owners, the proposal for additional storage is not just about Southern Lake residents, but rather Yukon ratepayers as a whole.

On the other hand, he suggested, residents are already dealing with shoreline erosion related to climate change.

Having Yukon Energy provide the stabilization would ensure a unified approach, instead of having individual property owners undertake their own initiatives, which may cause a greater problem for neighbouring shorelines, he said.

A graph provided to reporters Monday regarding lake levels shows the high-water level in the summers of 2012 and 2013 exceeded the 30-centimetre increase Yukon Energy is looking at. It was just shy of the mark last summer.

In the horrendous flood year of 2007, the level peaked at almost 80 centimetres above the additional 30-centimetre mark, according to the graph.

Marsh Lake traditionally peaks in mid-August to mid-September, driven by precipitation and snowmelt at higher mountain elevations.

The lake level tends to begin dropping again in early to late September.

Yukon Energy is proposing to maintain the additional 30 centimetres of water for six to eight weeks in mid- to late fall.

It would draw down the lake level a further 10 centimetres in late April to mid-May, when the lake level is normally at its lowest.

Comments (3)

Up 3 Down 2

north_of_60 on Mar 6, 2015 at 12:43 pm

This project is a sensible solution to manage our hydro resources more efficiently and use less fossil fuel for back-up.

The only ones opposed to it are affluent NIMBYs who have clearly shown they don’t understand the solid science behind the proposal. They’ve had their say, now move ahead with implementing better water level control.

Do the same with Atlin lake.

Up 4 Down 1

ProScience Greenie on Mar 5, 2015 at 3:19 pm

If a wee bit of my hydro bill goes towards Southern Lakes wide erosion control, including assisting property owners that have been there for a long time to prevent shoreline destruction, then that's fine by me as we're lucky to have so much green hydro energy in our backyard.

Homeowners should pay for their own septic upgrades or anything fancy along the shoreline themselves. We could consider some kind of zero-interest loan program for septic upgrades.

Up 6 Down 2

Questions on Mar 5, 2015 at 9:21 am

“YEC raising lake levels”? Last time I checked YEC was asking to hold back water beginning in the fall, as lake levels naturally drop off, so they can use this water to generate electricity in winter. Since water levels in Marsh Lake naturally rise well above the proposed full supply level, namely in J/Aug/S, impacts related to “the project” are marginal in comparison to the unmanaged natural levels that occur in summer. The impact studies on the record demonstrate this, and if you don’t believe me then you likely don’t believe the earth is round either so I’m not going to try and convince you.
Why should I the rate payer have to pay to mitigate impacts that are not caused entirely by “the project” and will happen naturally anyway? The same goes for groundwater impacts. Septic fields that are built to YG code are required to be 0.5m above the seasonal high gw mark. All of the properties of concern do not meet this code. Why should I the rate payer have to pay to have septic fields “improved to mitigate impacts” when they already don’t meet code with or without the project ever happening? Is it because YEC realizes that in order to make the project happen they have to step up and pay for everything? Is it because the people who are going to be marginally impacted by higher than normal water levels later into the fall feel they are entitled to have government pay for all of their problems, like they did after the 07 flood? Arial photos that date back prior to any development, clearly indicate that the properties of concern have long been prone to natural flooding. Why did YG permit these properties to be titled in the first place? These properties will continue to flood forever. After 07, why were there no flood mitigation rebuilding requirements associated with the $ that was given out? Will the next YG flood bailout constitute an “emergency” given that it’s a matter of WHEN, not IF, another 07 flood occurs?

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.