Final Report for
Alberta Utilities Commission
Calgary, Alberta
Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources
H334053
Rev. 1
February 26, 2010
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
Alberta Utilities Commission
Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources
Prepared by:
LCB/JG/SM/BA
January 28, 2010
Date
Lance Bendiak
February 26, 2010
Date
Approvals
Hatch
Approved by:
Alberta Utilities Commission
Completed according
to terms of reference:
Don Popowich
February 26, 2010
Date
Distribution List
Don Popowich - AUC
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page i
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
PREFACE
Hatch Ltd. (Hatch) was retained by the Alberta Utilities Commission to update the Energy Resources
Conservation Board May 1981 Report, “Alberta Hydroelectric Energy Resources“, which was
originally published in April 1973. While most of the basic information contained in 1981 report
remains unchanged, the hydrologic data recorded and published since that time have been
examined to determine their effect on the appraisal of hydroelectric resources. A few studies
considering hydroelectric development were completed since that time. These recent studies have
been considered in re-examining the underlying basis of the appraisal.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page ii
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In Alberta there are five main river basins, the Athabasca, North Saskatchewan, Peace, Slave and
South Saskatchewan. The ultimate hydroelectric energy potential that could be extracted from these
river basins is about 53,000 gigawatt hours per year, or 42,000 gigawatt hours per year at identified
sites. These figures refer to what might be developed under favourable economic and other
circumstances over a long period into the future. Approximately 75 percent per of this ultimate
potential is contained in the Athabasca, Peace and Slave River basins within the northern part of the
province. The remaining 25 percent is in the Red Deer River basin and the North and South
Saskatchewan River basins within the southern part of the province.
Between 1911 and 1972, thirteen hydroelectric plants were completed in the Bow (a tributary of the
South Saskatchewan) and North Saskatchewan River basins. These thirteen plants have a total
installed capacity of 800 megawatts, operate at an average capacity factor of about 25 percent and
produce about 3 percent of the total 53,000 gigawatt hours per year of ultimate potential.
Since about 1990 another nine hydroelectric plants were completed in Southern Alberta with a
combined capacity of about 100 megawatts. Their average capacity factor is about 45 percent and
they produce about 1 percent of the ultimate potential of the province.
Since publication of the original report in 19731, various studies have been carried out for projects
located on both northern and southern rivers. Northern projects have been examined for hydro
electric potential, while southern projects have been examined for water supply purposes with
supplementary investigation of the associated hydroelectric potential. The results of these studies
have varied according to the type of project envisioned.
In the early 1980’s there were studies completed for both the Dunvegan hydro project on the Peace
River and Slave River hydro project. Although these projects appeared feasible they have not been
developed further as large hydro projects. The Dunvegan site has recently been approved for a 100
MW low head run of river development which is not yet under construction. The Slave River hydro
project has been looked at again recently by private developers.
Basically, in the southern basins, hydroelectric plants appear feasible if the costs of dams and
spillways are borne by some other water oriented purpose. This is the case for both the Dickson Dam
and Oldman River Dam which have both had hydro facilities added after construction of the dams
and spillways by Alberta Environment.
1
The Energy Resources Conservation Board April 1973 Report, ”The Hydro And Hydro Electric Energy
Potential of Alberta - A Preliminarily Appraisal“
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page iii
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
Hatch believes that major projects in the northern basins and smaller projects in the southern basins
may be developed in the next 30 years. Total development in this period might be as high as 20
percent of the province's ultimate potential of 53,000 gigawatt hours per year. However, to realize
this capacity, 2 major projects would likely have to be constructed. If feasible, such development
would serve the interests of energy conservation, reducing carbon emissions and providing
renewable energy for the provincial electric system.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page iv
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
Table of Contents
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................. ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables........................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... vii
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 1
2. PHYSIOGRAPHY, CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY................................................................................... 3
2.1
2.2
2.3
PHYSIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................... 3
CLIMATE ....................................................................................................................................... 4
HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 4
3. TECHNICAL BASIS OF THE APPRAISAL ................................................................................................. 6
3.1 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 6
3.2 DEFINITION OF ENERGY POTENTIALS ........................................................................................ 6
3.2.1 Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential (TMHE).................................................... 7
3.2.2 Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential (UDHE) ................................................... 8
3.2.3 Developed Hydroelectric Energy (DHE)...................................................................................... 8
3.2.4 Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites (RDHE-I) ................... 8
3.2.5 Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites (RDHE-U) ............ 9
3.3 GROSS HEAD AND AVERAGE FLOW........................................................................................... 9
4. THE ATHABASCA RIVER BASIN ........................................................................................................... 10
4.1
4.2
4.3
GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 10
INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 10
ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 12
5. THE CHURCHILL RIVER BASIN............................................................................................................ 14
5.1
5.2
GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 14
ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 14
6. THE HAY RIVER BASIN......................................................................................................................... 15
6.1
6.2
GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 15
ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 15
7. THE MILK RIVER BASIN........................................................................................................................ 16
7.1
7.2
GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 16
ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 16
8. THE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN...................................................................................... 17
8.1
8.2
8.3
ISO 9001
GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 17
INVESTIGATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 17
ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 18
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page v
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
9. THE PEACE RIVER BASIN...................................................................................................................... 20
9.1
9.2
9.3
GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 20
INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 20
ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 21
10. THE RED DEER RIVER BASIN................................................................................................................ 22
10.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 22
10.2 ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 22
11. THE SLAVE RIVER BASIN...................................................................................................................... 23
11.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 23
11.2 INVESTIGATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 23
11.3 ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 23
12. THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN ...................................................................................... 25
12.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 25
12.2 INVESTIGATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 26
12.3 ENERGY POTENTIALS................................................................................................................. 27
13. THE PROVINCE AS A WHOLE.............................................................................................................. 29
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................... 30
List of Tables
1 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Athabasca River Basin
2 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Churchill River Basin
3 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Hay River Basin
4 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Milk River Basin
5 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the North Saskatchewan River Basin
6 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Peace River Basin
7 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Red Deer River Basin
8 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Slave River Basin
9 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the South Saskatchewan River Basin
10 The Hydroelectric Energy Potential of Alberta
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page vi
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
List of Figures
1 Hydroelectric Capacity in Alberta
2 Alberta's Peak Load and Installed Capacity
3 Alberta River Basins
4 Alberta Bedrock Geology
5 Athabasca River Basin
6 Profile of the Athabasca River and its Major Tributaries
7 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationships - Athabasca River Basin
8 Churchill River Basin
9 Profile of the Beaver River (Churchill River Basin)
10 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationship - Beaver River (Churchill River Basin)
11 Hay River Basin
12 Profile of the Hay River
13 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationship - Hay River Basin
14 Milk River Basin
15 Profile of the Milk River
16 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationship - Milk River Basin
17 North Saskatchewan River Basin
18 Profile of the North Saskatchewan River and its Major Tributaries
19 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationship - North Saskatchewan River Basin
20 Peace River Basin
21 Profile of the Peace River and its Major Tributaries
22 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationships - Peace River Basin
23 Red Deer River Basin and its Major Tributaries
24 Profile of the Red Deer River
25 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationship - Red Deer River Basin
26 Slave River Basin
27 Profile of the Slave River
28 South Saskatchewan River Basin
29 Profile of the South Saskatchewan River and its Major Tributaries
30 Average Flow - Drainage Area Relationships - South Saskatchewan River Basin
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page vii
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
1.
INTRODUCTION
Hydroelectric development commenced in Alberta in 1896 with the construction of the Eau Claire
plant at the end of the Eau Claire Sawmill log canal on the south side of Prince's Island in the City of
Calgary. This plant had many problems with ice. For this reason and because of its small size and
poor efficiency, it was later closed and removed.
The earliest of the existing hydro plants commenced operating in 1911 when the Horseshoe Plant on
the Bow River was commissioned to serve a cement plant located at Exshaw. This plant was
subsequently connected to serve the City of Calgary. Since that time, 10 additional hydro plants have
been built in the Bow River basin, 2 hydro plants on the North Saskatchewan River and 1 plant has
been built in the Athabasca River basin. More recently there was 1 hydro plant built in the Red Deer
River basin and 8 plants built in the South Saskatchewan River basin. The 1980 total installed
capacity of the operating plants was 800 megawatts whereas in 2010 the capacity is about 900
megawatts. Figure 1 shows the historic sequence of hydro capacity additions.
In the early years, hydroelectric plants were built as close as possible to the loads to be served.
Recent technological advances in transmission and automation, the size of modern projects and the
multi-purpose use of waters flowing through hydroelectric projects have altered the economic
determining factors for developing hydroelectric plants. Presently, there is interest in developing
hydroelectric plants at locations more remote from load centers.
While hydro energy had played a significant role in Alberta and is still important, its role has been
diminished in relative terms. In the early 1950’s, about half the province's installed capacity was
hydroelectric. Currently the hydro capacity is about 7 percent of the total. This trend is shown in
Figure 2.
A number of rivers, either with headwaters in or flowing through Alberta, possess large hydro energy
potential. Those rivers still undeveloped are mainly in the northern and sparsely settled part of the
Province, whereas the rivers in the southern part of Alberta are substantially developed or already
committed to other uses such as irrigation or municipal water supply. Studies and investigations
dating as far back at 1916 have been undertaken from time to time by Government agencies and
private companies on nearly all rivers of Alberta.
Hatch presents an appraisal of the overall inventory and perspective of the hydroelectric energy
resources in Alberta. Listed in the inventory are the theoretical hydro energy resources, the portion of
that which considered potentially developable and the energy potential of known sites for which
reports of previous investigations are available. Hatch also presents preliminary estimates of hydro
energy which could be developed under favorable economic, environmental and social
circumstances. However, Hatch does not propose to define the hydro energy which would actually
be developed on any particular site or any particular river. The evaluation of any particular site for
development must be based on detailed engineering and economic investigations and studies of
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 1
© Hatch 2010/02
1000
900
800
Installed Capacity (MW)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Time (Years)
FIGURE 1
HYDRO ELECTRIC CAPACITY IN ALBERTA
14000
12000
Net Capacity (MW)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1998
2003
2008
Time (Years)
Hydro
Wind
Biomass & Other
Thermal
Peak Load
FIGURE 2
ALBERTA'S PEAK LOAD AND INSTALLED CAPACITY
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
many factors which are beyond the scope of this appraisal. Hatch also recognizes that a complete
evaluation of any potential hydroelectric development must have regard for multipurpose
possibilities and for social and environmental impacts.
In this report, consideration has been limited to the main rivers and the major tributaries of each of
the nine river basins of the Province as identified in Figure 3. Minor tributaries have not been
considered because of lack of adequate hydrologic and geotechnical data related to them.
Notwithstanding the lack of relevant data, Hatch believes that the minor tributaries would make only
a small contribution to the total hydro energy resources of the Province and recognizes that a small
part of this additional potential may be developed in conjunction with other projects.
The inventory is broadly based upon topographic information obtained from the National
Topographic Series maps and stream flow data from Water Survey of Canada stream gauging stations.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 2
© Hatch 2010/02
II
I
III
AN
SASKATCHEW
V
IV
Map Legend
VI
Rivers
Watershed Boundary
Drainage Basins
VII
B
R
IT
X
H
IS
For purposes of this report the province
is divided into basins as follows:
C
LU
O
100
200
300
IA
50
B
0
M
HAY
I
SLAVE
II
PEACE
III
ATHABASCA
IV
CHURCHILL
V
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN VI
RED DEER
VII
SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN VIII
MILK
IX
NON-CONTRIBUTING
X
VIII
X IX
400
km
FIGURE 3
ALBERTA RIVER BASINS
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
2.
PHYSIOGRAPHY, CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY
2.1
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Figure 4 presents the bedrock geology of the Province and shows Alberta comprised of four main
divisions: the Canadian Shield in the northeast, the Interior plains region in the central and southeast,
the Foothills in the south central region, and the Rocky Mountain Cordillera region covering the
south-western portion of the Province. Each region is further divided into geologic periods where
typical rock types are listed. The regions marked as “undivided” in the legend refer to areas where
Geologic Periods cannot easily be differentiated. Rock types in these regions resemble a mixture of
those in adjacent regions.
The Rocky Mountains region is bounded by the Continental Divide on the west and by the most
easterly ridge of the Rocky Mountains on the east. Local topography shows large elevation variations,
from 1,200 metres in the large river valleys to over 3,000 metres at the mountain peaks. The sources
of the Smoky, Athabasca, North Saskatchewan and South Saskatchewan rivers are in this region. The
bedrock of the region is Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary rock consisting of limestone,
dolomite, shale and quartzite. The valleys contain glacial gravel deposits, sometimes to great depths.
In places, the mountains are capped by permanent snowfields and glaciers and the lower slopes are
covered by alpine forests up to an elevation of about 2,100 metres.
Paralleling the mountains and extending eastward from the eastern most ridge of the Rockies is the
Foothills region, a transition zone between the Rocky Mountains and the Interior Plains regions. The
characteristics of the transition zone are reflected in the vegetation. Alpine forest covers the higher
elevations of the region and, as the elevation decreases, the vegetation changes to deciduous trees
and finally to rolling grassland. The bedrocks of the region are Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic
formations composed of sandstone, shale, coal, carbonate rocks and gypsum. Rivers that originate in
the mountains enter this zone at an elevation of about 1,200 metres and emerge on the plains at
about 900 metres. A few rivers, such as the Berland, Nordegg and Little Red Deer Rivers originate in
this region.
The Interior Plains region is of low topographic relief, sloping gently eastward and northward, with
poor drainage patterns and many small landlocked lakes, sloughs and marshes. Semi-arid conditions
and "badlands" in the southeast part of the Province between the North and South Saskatchewan
rivers change gradually to grassland, parkland, and bush country in the more moist central and
northern parts of the plains.
The soil deposited by the last continental glaciation is varied in texture and depth and mantles the
bedrock by as much as 150 metres at some points. The bedrock beneath the plains may be
generalized into four groups as shown in Figure 4. Eastward from the foothills are Tertiary sandstone,
shale and coal; then Upper Cretaceous sandstone, shale, coal and bentonite. Further north is the
Lower Cretaceous shale and the oil sands, and finally Devonian limestone, dolomite, shale and
gypsum to the Canadian Shield. The flat or gently rolling topography of the plains is broken by a few
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 3
© Hatch 2010/02
AN
SASKATCHEW
MAP LEGEND
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
Geologic Period
CANADIAN SHIELD
Aphebian - Granite, Quartzite
Helikian - Sandstone, Siltstone
Archean - Granite, Gneiss, Quartzite
INTERIOR PLAINS
Cretaceous - Sandstone, Shale, Coal, Bentonite
Devonian - Limestone, Dolomite, Salt, Gypsum
IT
BR
FOOTHILLS
H
IS
Tertiary - Sandstone, Shale, Coal
CO
LU
M
CORDILLERA
A
BI
Lower Paleozoic - Limestone, Dolomite, Shale, Quartzite
Upper Paleozoic - Limestone, Dolomite, Shale
Middle - Limestone, Dolomite, Shale
OTHER
Undivided
0
50
100
200
300
400
km
Source: Alberta Geological Survey
ALBERTA BEDROCK GEOLOGY
FIGURE 4
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
ridges of hills in which most of the small streams of the region have their source. Water yield from
the plains is relatively low and in some areas almost negligible.
The northeast corner of the Province is the Canadian Shield region, composed of hard Precambrian
rocks which represent the roots of ancient mountains worn down through eons of time to a relatively
level plain like surface. This Shield region is now characterized by numerous rounded and bare
knobs of hard granite, gneiss and quartzite rocks, abundant angular lakes and marshy depressions,
and an ineffective drainage system. Much of the land is lacking fine-grained surface material. The
sparse vegetation is rooted in cracks in the rocks and only in a few sandy areas does jackpine exist in
any abundance. No large streams originate in this region within Alberta, although minor streams
provide drainage to the Slave River and Lake Athabasca.
2.2
CLIMATE
Alberta is in the central belt of the northern cool temperate zone. It has cold winters and short, cool
summers. Its climate is influenced by its latitude, altitude and distance from the ocean.
Perhaps the most important factors affecting temperature and precipitation in Alberta are the height
and width of the Rocky Mountains, and the direction of the prevailing winds which are from the
west, southwest and northwest. The mean January temperature is -9 C in the most southern portion of
the Province and decreases gradually to -23 C in the far northern parts. The mean temperature in July
is about 16°C in the northern, central and south central part of the Province. It increases to about 20
C towards the southeast corner, and decreases to about 13 C in the mountain regions.
The average annual precipitation of snow and rain is about 300 mm in the south eastern part of the
Province, 460 mm in the central region and about 400 to 460 mm in the far northern area. Along the
foothills and in the mountains precipitation ranges from 500 to 670 mm each year.
2.3
HYDROLOGY
As shown in Figure 3, the Province is divided into nine river basins for the purpose of this appraisal.
The Hay, Slave, Peace and Athabasca Rivers flow to the Arctic Ocean; the North Saskatchewan,
Beaver (a tributary of the Churchill River), Red Deer and South Saskatchewan Rivers flow to the
Hudson Bay; and a small area in the south is drained by the Milk River into the Missouri River
system and the Gulf of Mexico.
Almost all streams in the Province exhibit one general characteristic - stream flow begins to rise as
the snowmelt season begins and, depending upon the incidence and intensity of rains, reaches an
annual maximum during the months of May and June. Recession from the maximum usually
continues through the rest of the summer and the succeeding winter with, however, significant
differences between the various regions because of the variations in topography and in the timing
and intensity of precipitation.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 4
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
On the plains, spring runoff from snowmelt begins in March or April and 80 percent or more of the
total annual stream flow usually occurs in the next few weeks. In the Shield region, spring runoff is
later than in the plains area further south.
In the foothills, spring runoff occurs about the same time as on the plains, however, it tends to be
prolonged as the warming trend gradually reaches the snow at higher elevations. The melt season in
the region is closely followed by a rainy season and the streams do not recede from spring peaks but
continue to rise and reach their maximum during periods of heavy precipitation in the early summer.
Water yield is much higher in this region than in the plains and severe local floods may occur during
the rainy season.
In the mountain region, snowmelt starts later than in the plains and, while the streams originating in
the plains are at their peak, the mountain streams may still be at their minimum flow. Spring thaw
begins in the high snowfields in June and is completed in July. The rainy season usually begins in
late May and peak flows are the result of the combination of rain and snowmelt anytime between
late May and mid July. The July flows are also augmented by glacial melt, which tends to prolong
the peak flows of summer. Almost all precipitation on the high snowfields is in the form of snow.
Annual carry-over of snow accumulation in these areas depends on the summer temperatures.
Winter flows on all rivers are affected by ice formation in winter. As the temperature drops below
freezing, large quantities of ice are formed in the rivers.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 5
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
3.
TECHNICAL BASIS OF THE APPRAISAL
3.1
DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Key definitions and abbreviations used in the energy assessment are listed below.
Megawatt (MW)
One million Watts
Gigawatt (GW)
One billion Watts
Gigawatt hour (GWh)
One billion Watt hours
3
Cubic metre per second (m /s)
Capacity Factor
3.2
a flow rate of one cubic metre of water passing a
particular point in one second.
the percentage of the actual output of a power plant
over a year or other period of time and its output if it
had operated at full capacity the entire time.
DEFINITION OF ENERGY POTENTIALS
Estimates of the following energy potentials are made:
•
Theoretical maximum hydroelectric energy potential (TMHE), gigawatt hours per year;
•
Ultimate developable hydroelectric energy potential (UDHE), gigawatt hours per year;
•
Developed hydroelectric energy (DHE), gigawatt hours per year;
•
Remaining developable hydroelectric energy potential at sites which have been identified or
studied (RDHE-I), gigawatt hours per year; and
•
Remaining developable hydroelectric energy potential at unidentified sites (RDHE-U), gigawatt
hours per year.
Below is an illustration of the various energy potential definitions that have been used in this study to
estimate the energies for the river basins and potential sites. The definitions and explanatory
discussions of each of the energy terms follow the illustration.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 6
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
3.2.1
Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential (TMHE)
This is the maximum electric energy which could be generated during a year if all the flowing water
were passed through turbines to generate electric energy. The conversion efficiency, which accounts
for reservoir drawdown, unavoidable spill, and conduit, turbine and generation losses, has been
estimated to be 70 percent. This percentage is 10 percent lower than in the previous studies because
it provides better estimates of energy generation which are more in line with existing and anticipated
hydroelectric developments. It has been based on a comparison of the actual generation at existing
plants versus the value predicted with Equation 1. Therefore, the theoretical maximum hydroelectric
energy (TMHE) which could be generated during a year is given by the following formula:
TMHE = 0.0602 Q H (GWh per year) (Equation 1)
where
•
Q = the average flow in the reach during the year in cubic metres per second (m3/s),
•
H = the gross head or elevation change over the reach in metres.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 7
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
3.2.2
Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential (UDHE)
A certain portion of the theoretical maximum hydroelectric energy potential cannot be considered to
be practically developable under any foreseeable technology or economic condition because of
•
the nature of the river gradient and the elevation of the banks and the surrounding land;
•
the lack of suitable sites;
•
major social or environmental restriction - national parks, historical or archaeological treasures,
urban development;
•
other water uses such as irrigation; and
•
other similar factors.
For these reasons, the ultimate developable hydroelectric energy (UDHE) potential will in most cases
be substantially less than the theoretical maximum hydroelectric energy potential. In this appraisal,
the UDHE is determined by reducing the TMHE through the application of broad judgment based
upon a general assessment of the above listed factors. The fraction of the TMHE which were
considered to be developable under any such foreseeable circumstances varies for individual rivers,
or for individual reaches of a river, from 0 to 90 percent. For the Province as a whole, the fraction of
the theoretical hydro electric potential which could be considered developable under favourable
economic and other circumstances is estimated at about 50 percent.
3.2.3
Developed Hydroelectric Energy (DHE).
This is the portion of the ultimate developable hydroelectric energy (UDHE) potential which is
already developed.
3.2.4
Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites (RDHE-I)
The further portion of the developable hydroelectric energy, which could be developed at sites
studied or identified by past investigations, is designated RDHE-I. The identified sites include those
investigated for irrigation, water supply, flood control and the regulation of river flow in addition to
those investigated for hydro energy potential. The hydroelectric energy potential of such sites has
been calculated using equation 1.
The stream flow of any river in Alberta is far from uniform and varies not only on an irregular annual
cycle but also from day to day and month to month. For example, the Athabasca River records show
that the river at the Town of Athabasca receded to a minimum monthly flow of 50 m3/s in February
of 1923, reached a maximum monthly flow of 2,500 m3/s in May of 1948, and has a long term
average flow of 417 m3/s. Such records of wide variations in actual rivers flows show that without an
appropriate combination of onsite and upstream reservoir storage, plus ample installed generating
capacity at each site, the developable energy at any identified site will be less than the ultimate
values tabulated in this report.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 8
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
3.2.5
Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites (RDHE-U)
The remaining developable hydroelectric energy potential at unidentified sites is the ultimate
potential (UDHE) less the developed potential (DHE) and less the identified developable potential
(RDHE-I). The estimates of the RDHE-U reflect the same broad judgment referred to in the
identification of the ultimate potential (UDHE). On a few river reaches where identified sites are
overlapping each other the largest developable site has been used to develop totals for that river
reach.
3.3
GROSS HEAD AND AVERAGE FLOW
All energy calculations are based upon the gross head and the annual average stream flow. In this
appraisal, the gross head or elevation change has in every instance been taken as the difference
between head pond or reservoir full supply level and the tailwater level below a hydro site or plant
at average flow.
Stream gauging stations having long term records exist at several points along most rivers but the
locations of the gauging stations rarely coincide with specific points of interest. Average annual flow
estimates of individual river reaches or at identified sites are based on regional regressions of the
available stream gauging records to the applicable drainage area. The technique is illustrated in
Figure 7, Section 4.
An important part of updating the estimation of hydroelectric energy potential is the re-examination
of the hydrologic record to determine whether the previous estimates of average flows should be
revised in light of the additional hydrologic records available. Water Survey of Canada publishes
stream flow data annually. At the time of the last report, stream flow data to 1978 was used to
estimate average flows. At the time of writing of this report, data were available to 2008.
Mean flows incorporating all data to 2008 were compared to the flow reported in the previous
report. It is worth noting that in the updating of the hydrology from the 1981 version, it was observed
in the hydrometric data that rivers have shown a general reduction in recorded flows. Although some
of this reduction can be attributed to new irrigation and industrial uses, this province wide trend
suggests that annual rainfall accumulations are declining in Alberta and it is a dryer region than
previously observed. While it is not certain, the trends observed are based on significantly more
years of record and have therefore been used for the present analysis of hydroelectric potential.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 9
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
4.
THE ATHABASCA RIVER BASIN
4.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Athabasca River, one of the larger rivers in Alberta, is the most southerly of the major tributaries
of the MacKenzie River. The major tributaries of the Athabasca considered in this appraisal are the
Berland, Wildhay, McLeod, Pembina and Clearwater Rivers. The Athabasca River has its source in
the Rocky Mountains area near Mt. Columbia. It flows through most of the different geological
formations to be found in the Province and, after following a north-easterly and northerly course for
slightly less than 1 600 km, empties into Lake Athabasca. From there its waters are conveyed by the
Slave River to Great Slave Lake and from there to the Arctic Ocean by the MacKenzie River. Figures
5 and 6 show the plan and profile of the Athabasca basin.
In its upper reaches, the river valley has low banks, increasing in height from Hinton to Whitecourt.
From Whitecourt to Fort McMurray, the valley is deep with a gradual tapering from there to Lake
Athabasca. The average flow of the river at the Town of Athabasca is 417 m3/s. The maximum
monthly recorded flow at Athabasca is 2,500 m3/s, the minimum recorded monthly flow is 50 m3/s.
Lakes in the upper reaches of the drainage basin tend to regulate the flow and spring floods are not
so prominent as in most mountain and foothills streams. However, flood conditions can occur, and
the most likely period is the latter part of June and early July. The maximum daily flow at Athabasca
was recorded as 5,440 m3/s on June 10, 1954.
4.2
INVESTIGATIONS
Until 1951, the Athabasca River was considered to be the most favourable river for power
development after the Bow River. Closer examinations in the early 1950's by the Alberta Power
Commission and Calgary Power Ltd. (currently known as TransAlta) indicated certain advantages to
developing the North Saskatchewan River.
For the purposes of assessment of the energy potentials, the Athabasca River is divided into four
reaches starting with Reach A from the source at the Columbia Glacier to Hinton; Reach B extending
from Hinton to just above the mouth of the Pembina, at approximately Vega; Reach C extending
from Vega to Fort McMurray; and Reach D from Fort McMurray to Lake Athabasca.
Reach A, from the Columbia Glacier to Hinton, is almost entirely within the Jasper National Park and
has a fall of approximately 550 metres in a distance of 215 km. This is an extremely large drop but
on examination it would appear that good natural development sites are not present. On examining
the old reports prepared by the Commission of Conservation Canada, the only sites considered were
at Jasper Lake and at Brule Lake, both of which have limited storage and head and would result in
difficulties with both the existing railway and the highway. When permission was requested in the
early 1950's to examine the Maligne and Snake Indian Rivers, it was refused by the Parks
Department of the Federal Government. The only development is a small hydro plant on the Astoria
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 10
© Hatch 2010/02
a Riv
er
b asc
Atha
Fort McMurray
Crooked Rapids Site
Brule Point Site
er
Clearwater Riv
AN
SASKATCHEW
Moberly Rapids Site
Whitemud Falls Site
Grand Rapids Site
Pelican Rapids Site
Lesser Slave Lake
Moose Portage Site
Mirror Site
Athabasca
Image Rock Site
Berland Site
Labyrinth Site
R
y
W
ild
ha
Pinto Creek Site
iver
nd R
Oldman Site
iv
er
Berla
Hinton
Vega
r
ive
R
sca
er
aba
R iv
Ath
ina
b
m
Pe
Whitecourt
Edson
McLeod River
McLeod Site
Pembina Site
McLeod Valley Site
BR
SH
ITI
B
UM
25 50
r
ve
0
Ri
IA
Astoria Hydro
a
sc
ba
ha
At
L
CO
Jasper
100
150
FIGURE 5
200
km
ATHABASCA RIVER BASIN
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
River, a minor tributary upstream of Jasper. This plant has a total capacity of 1.4 megawatts operating
at a head of 152 metres.
Reach B from Hinton to Vega just above the mouth of the Pembina has a fall of approximately 380
metres. This reach was given a cursory examination many years ago by the Commission of
Conservation Canada and private consultants but was not considered attractive for early
development. Early in the 1950's the same area was given another preliminary examination by the
Alberta Power Commission and Calgary Power Ltd., and again was discarded due to the magnitude
of the possible developments and the topographical and geological problems. The Alberta Water
Resources Division has also examined this reach from Hinton to the mouth of the Berland River.
Some potential should be placed on the sites within the reach but even with multi-purpose use the
developments do not appear very attractive at this time.
The confluence of both the Berland and McLeod Rivers with the Athabasca occurs in reach B. The
Berland is a relatively low flow tributary and foundation examination, although preliminary, indicates
difficult construction problems. The average flow is approximately 43 m3/s and the amount of the
potential energy is not significant in terms of present energy requirements. The McLeod River, with
an average flow of 53 m3/s, may have slightly more potential.
Reach C from Vega to Fort McMurray, has a fall of approximately 365 metres in 600 km and appears
to be the most attractive reach from the standpoint of power development. Sites have been located in
the past and one has had preliminary drilling. This section may also benefit from the large storage at
Lesser Slave Lake, which discharges into the main river through the Lesser Slave River above the
most upstream site in the reach. It appears that storage created by the Mirror site (see Figure 5) would
drown out any sites on the Lesser Slave River.
In 1975, a study of the Crooked Rapids site examined the feasibility of dam heights of 165 metres
and 78 metres. Because of the geological problems of this site, the technical feasibility of a high dam
could not be established and the overall costs of the lower dam and power facilities were judged to
be excessive at that time. Since that time, ice-jamming problems at Fort McMurray have prompted
the investigation of means of alleviating those problems. Such studies suggest that some benefits
other than hydro power may accrue to a Crooked Rapids development. These benefits, however,
would be relatively minor and would not substantially improve the feasibility of this project.
Alternative means of alleviating ice-jamming problems include a small ice control structure upstream
of Fort McMurray. A small power plant could be associated with this structure if built. The
development of such a power plant, of possibly 30 megawatt size, has not been evaluated. Other
tributaries such as the Calling and the Lac La Biche Rivers are too small to be considered for
development.
Reach D of the river from Fort McMurray to Lake Athabasca, with a gradual fall of approximately 30
metres in 290 km, has a lack of developable sites and is used for navigation.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 11
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
4.3
ENERGY POTENTIALS
The hydroelectric energy potentials of the Athabasca River basin along with the basic data from
which they are determined are shown in Table 1. The drainage area of each reach, tributary or site
was measured from the National Topographic Series maps at a scale of 1:500,000.
The average flow is estimated from the best available stream flow data obtained from Water Survey
of Canada. These data are plotted versus the applicable drainage areas in Figure 7. Data was used
from the six gauging stations on the main stem of the Athabasca River, at Jasper, near Windfall, at
Athabasca, below Fort McMurray, at Entrance and at Hinton. Records from other stations on the
Athabasca River were disregarded because of their sparse data. The station at Athabasca has 94 years
of records and the long term average flow value there should be close to true average. Most other
stations have somewhat shorter records.
The Berland, McLeod and Pembina River tributaries rise in the same area, drain similar topographic
regions and are under similar climatic conditions, and therefore, similar relationships based on
gauging data or inferred data are established for these rivers in Figure 7.
The Clearwater River is a low-profile river which rises in a non-mountainous area and has different
characteristics than the other major tributaries in the basin. The gauging station at Draper has
relatively long and continuous records and the data from the station above Christina River was
adjusted against that from Draper to give continuous records. A regression was completed using this
data to represent the average flow - drainage area relationship for the Clearwater River.
The gross head for each reach, or tributary or site is taken from the profile given in Figure 6. The
TMHE (Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy) is calculated from the average flow and the
applicable gross head using equation 1.
The UDHE (Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential) for each reach of the main river
and each major tributary is derived by the application of broad judgment and a "development factor"
as shown. Reach A, from the headwater to Hinton is almost entirely situated inside the boundary of
the Jasper National Park and past investigations did not reveal any attractive sites. Therefore, only a
small portion of the hydro energy potential in this reach of the river was considered developable in
the foreseeable future. Reach D, between Ft. McMurray and Lake Athabasca was also considered
developable for only a small portion because of the flat gradient, low banks, wide valley and the
potential interference with recovery of bitumen from the oil sands in the reach. The UDHE is
accompanied by estimates of the equivalent plant installed capacities at four arbitrarily assumed
capacity factors.
The DHE (Developed Hydroelectric Energy) is the minor development on the Astoria River. This
plant will not affect, or be affected by, any future hydro development in the basin.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 12
© Hatch 2010/02
1000.0
6
Athabasca River
5
2
4
3
1
17
Average Flow (cms)
100.0
10
Berland 7
River
9
8
16
Clearwater River
14
11
Pembina River
13
15
10.0
12
McLeod River
1.0
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Drainage Area (Km2)
1. Athabasca River near Jasper 07AA002
2. Athabasca River at Entrance 07AD001
3. Athabasca River at Hinton 07AD002
4. Athabasca River near Windfall 07AE001
5. Athabasca River at Athabasca 07BE001
6. Athabasca River below McMurray 07DA001
7. Berland River near the mouth 07AC007
8. McLeod River Above Embarras River 07AF002
9. McLeod River near Wolf Creek 07AG001
10. McLeod River near Whitecourt 07AG004
11. McLeod River near Rosevear 07AG007
12. McLeod River near Cadomin 07AF013
13. Pembina River near Entwistle 07BB002
14. Pembina River at Jarvie 07BC002
15. Pembina River below Paddy Creek 07BA001
16. Clearwater River Above Christina River 7CD005
17. Clearwater River at Draper 07CD001
FIGURE 7
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
ATHABASCA RIVER BASIN
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
The RDHE-I (Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites) is calculated
in the same manner as the UDHE from equation 1.
The RDHE-U (Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites) is simply
the difference between the UDHE and the sum of the DHE and the RDHE-I for each reach, or
tributary into each reach of the river.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 13
© Hatch 2010/02
Table 1 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Athabasca River Basin
UDHE
TMHE
CHARACTERISTICS
DHE
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
ANNUAL
DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
AREA
FLOW
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
3
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
3,510
4%
140
80
40
27
20
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY
ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
ATHABASCA RIVER
REACH A - HEADWATER TO HINTON
0 - 10,100
0 - 165
ASTORIA PLANT
REACH B - HINTON TO VEGA
555
152
7
165 - 314
378
OLDMAN SITE
11,100
173
79
820
470
230
160
120
IMAGE ROCK SITE
11,900
179
49
530
300
150
100
80
0-3000
0 - 23
425
LABYRINTH SITE
1,400
11
65
40
20
10
10
10
PINTO CREEK SITE
2,600
20
48
60
30
20
10
10
0 - 5,700
0 - 43
674
5,400
41
46
0 - 9,800
0 - 53
802
MCLEOD VALLEY SITE
8,000
45
46
120
70
30
20
20
MCLEOD SITE
9,300
51
46
140
80
40
30
20
REACH C-VEGA TO FT. MCMURRAY
35,700 - 125,000
314 - 595
366
MOOSE PORTAGE SITE
72,000
449
60
1,620
920
460
310
230
MIRROR SITE
75,100
458
72
1,990
1,140
570
380
280
PELICAN RAPID SITE
82,900
482
76
2,210
1,260
630
420
320
GRAND RAPIDS SITE
86,000
491
60
1,770
1,010
510
340
250
BRULE POINT SITE
88,000
497
84
2,510
1,430
720
480
360
CROOKED RAPIDS SITE
90,600
505
76
2,310
1,320
660
440
330
MOBERLY RAPIDS SITE
102,300
521
37
1,160
660
330
220
170
0 - 14,200
0 -34
942
4,400
20
61
14,000 - 31,600
64 - 121
64
14,200
65
15
125,000 - 153,800
595 - 661
34
0 - 153,800
0 - 661
BERLAND RIVER
BERLAND SITE
MCLEOD RIVER
PEMBINA RIVER
PEMBINA SITE
CLEANWATER RIVER
WHITEMUD FALLS SITE
REACH D-FT. MCMURRAY TO LAKE ATHABASCA
TOTAL OF THE ATHABASCA RIVER BASIN
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
310
850
50%
2,850
40%
120
40%
1,630
70
340
810
30
190
540
20
100
410
20
60
50
110
1,450
10,270
1,250
40%
80%
40%
580
8,220
500
330
4,690
290
170
2,350
140
110
1,560
100
30%
110
60
30
20
24,970
15%
30
20
70
40
20
10
110
50
40
30
13,050
7,450
3,720
2,477
1,870
7
55%
30
20
1,500
860
430
290
210
20
10
10
0
0
230
130
70
40
30
320
180
90
60
50
0
0
0
0
0
430
250
120
80
60
50
30
10
10
10
190
110
50
40
30
2,873
1,650
820
550
410
10
20
190
40
20
1,170
60
1,280
60
80
70
360
80
1
10,100 - 35,700
WILDHAY RIVER
5,690
55%
133
1
9,620
30
8,840
20
4,430
10
2,960
10
2,240
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
5.
THE CHURCHILL RIVER BASIN
5.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
One of the headwater tributaries of the Churchill River is the Beaver River which has its source in the
Cretaceous plateau, south of Lac La Biche, Alberta. It flows eastward for 370 km and then northward
140 km, emptying into the south end of Ile a la Crosse Lake in the Province of Saskatchewan. In the
river section lying within the Province of Alberta there are a number of small lakes and river banks
are low.
The average flow of the river at Cold Lake reserve is approximately 19 m3/s. There appears to be no
developable potential as both the river gradient and flow are quite low.
Figures 8 and 9 show the plan and profile of the river basin and Figure 10 shows the average flow
versus the drainage area relationship.
5.2
ENERGY POTENTIALS
Since there is no developable potential for the Churchill River basin, only the theoretical potentials
along with their basic data are shown in Table 2. As in the case of tributaries to the larger rivers,
some hydro potential could be developed as a secondary benefit if development mainly for other
purposes were to occur.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 14
© Hatch 2010/02
AN
SASKATCHEW
Beaver Crossing
Beaver River
0
12.5
25
50
75
100
km
CHURCHILL RIVER BASIN
FIGURE 8
1000.0
Average Flow (cms)
100.0
2
3
Beaver River
10.0
1
1.0
1000
10000
100000
Drainage Area (Km2)
1. Beaver River near Goodridge - 06AA001
2. Beaver River near Dorintosh - 06AD001
3. Beaver River at Cold Lake Reserve - 06AD006
FIGURE 10
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
BEAVER RIVER (CHURCHILL RIVER BASIN)
Table 2 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Churchill River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
DHE
UDHE
TMHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
BEAVER RIVER
BEAVER RIVER
TOTAL OF THE BEAVER RIVER BASIN
0 - 15,300
0 - 16
0 - 15,300
0 - 16
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
79
40
40
0%
Nil
0
Nil
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
6.
THE HAY RIVER BASIN
6.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Hay River has its source north of the Clear Hills in the north western corner of Alberta. The
stream flows west and crosses the (Alberta-British Columbia boundary, continues a distance of some
140 km in B.C. and returns to Alberta, flowing east through Zama and Hay Lakes. It then joins with
its tributary, the Chinchaga River which rises just east of the British Columbia boundary. The Hay
River then flows north to cross the Alberta-Northwest Territories boundary.
Throughout its length in both Alberta and B.C., the Hay River has low banks limiting storage
potential. The gorge for which power potential was earlier considered is within the Northwest
Territories and therefore is not listed as a part of Alberta's power potential.
The estimated average flow of the river just above the Meander River is 76 m3/s. Because of the low
flow, lack of storage sites and the remoteness of the area, the energy potential of the Hay River
considered developable in the foreseeable future was estimated to be small. The plan and profile of
the river basin are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Figure13 shows the drainage area and average flow
relationship.
6.2
ENERGY POTENTIALS
As there is only minor developable potential for the Hay River basin, the theoretical and developable
potentials along with their basic data are shown in Table 3.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 15
© Hatch 2010/02
LUMBIA
BRITISH CO
y
Ha
er
Riv
Ch
inc
ha
go
Riv
er
Zama Lake
0 12.5 25
50
75
100
km
FIGURE 11
HAY RIVER BASIN
Average Flow (cms)
1000.0
Hay
1
100.0
2
10.0
10000
100000
Drainage Area (Km2)
1. Hay River near Hay River - 07OB001
2. Hay River near Meander River - 07OB003
FIGURE 13
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
HAY RIVER BASIN
Table 3 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Hay River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
DHE
UDHE
TMHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
HAY RIVER
HAY RIVER
TOTAL OF THE HAY RIVER BASIN
0 - 48,700
0 - 103
0 - 48,700
0 - 103
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
335
1,030
1,030
10%
100
60
30
20
10
100
60
30
20
10
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
60
30
20
10
100
60
30
20
10
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
7.
THE MILK RIVER BASIN
7.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Milk River rises on the eastern slope of the foothills on the Blackfoot Indian Reserve in the state
of Montana, U.S.A. Throughout its 260 km course in Canada, the Milk River flows through a well
defined valley. The river receives a number of small tributary creeks along its course, all of which
discharge a relatively large volume of water during the spring freshets. This flow usually ceases in
July, and the streams have little discharge again until late in the fall, when several have a small flow
for perhaps a month before freeze-up.
The average flow of the river at the Town of Milk River is about 9 m3/s. The flow in the river is
typical of all rivers which have a watershed devoid of tree growth; namely, it is subject to extreme
floods during the spring runoff period and to correspondingly low flows during the summer months.
The north branch of the Milk River is the conveyance stream for the United States share of water
rights divided between Canada and the United States and affecting the Milk, St. Mary's, Waterton
and Belly Rivers.
The water of the Milk River, Belly River and the other treaty river diversions is for irrigation purposes,
and is used in the summer months. Because of this use, as well as physical problems of terrain, the
river is not considered suitable for hydroelectric energy generation.
Figures 14, 15 and 16 show the plan, profiles and the average flow and drainage area relationship of
the river.
7.2
ENERGY POTENTIALS
Since there is no developable potential tor the Milk River basin, only the theoretical potentials along
with their basic data are shown in Table 4. It is recognized that, should a storage reservoir be built in
the basin, some of the potential could be developed as a conservation measure.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 16
© Hatch 2010/02
SASKATCHEWAN
Milk River
Milk
Riv
er
MONTANA
0
12.5
25
50
75
100
km
FIGURE 14
MILK RIVER BASIN
Average Flow (cms)
100.0
3
1
10.0
Milk River
2
1.0
100
1000
10000
100000
Drainage Area (Km2)
1. Milk River at Milk River- 11AA005
2. Milk River at Western Crossing of International Boundary - 11AA025
3. Milk River at Eastern Crossing of International Boundary - 11AA031
FIGURE 16
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
MILK RIVER BASIN
Table 4 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Milk River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
UDHE
TMHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
MILK RIVER
MILK RIVER
TOTAL OF THE MILK RIVER BASIN
1,000 - 6,700
3 - 10
1,000 - 6,700
3 - 10
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
343
140
140
0%
Nil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
140
80
40
30
20
140
80
40
30
20
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
8.
THE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
8.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Saskatchewan River has its source in the Rocky Mountains near Mt. Athabasca at the head
of the north branch. What might be considered a secondary source is the Freshfield glacier located in
the Howse Pass at the head of the middle branch.
Between the junction of the north and middle branches and the Kootenay Plains immediately above
the Big Horn reservoir, the North Saskatchewan flows in a north-east and easterly direction. The
Siffleur and Mistaya Rivers and a number of creeks enter the North Saskatchewan above the
Kootenay Plains. The major tributaries, namely the Ram, Clearwater and Brazeau Rivers rise near the
British Columbia border and enter the main stem of the river as it leaves the foothills area and enters
the Interior Plains formation.
Between the upper reaches of the river and a point below its confluence with Shunda Creek is a
region lying within the geological formation known as the Cordillera. This portion of the river
through the Rocky Mountains and foothills region has low banks crossed at intervals with rocky
ridges and is considered to have reasonably good foundation conditions. The river gradient is quite
even through this section, supporting a swift flow with a wide channel and forming islands or gravel
bars at different locations. There are anomalies to these conditions, however, such as the gorge at
Bighorn and the deep section at Saskatchewan Gap. After leaving the foothills area, the river flows
through the Interior Plains formation called the Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous. Through these
formations to where it meets the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, the river flows in a deep, clearly
defined valley.
The average flow of the North Saskatchewan River at Edmonton is about 210 m3/s. The maximum
monthly recorded flow is 1,210 m3/s and the minimum 16 m3/s. The Clearwater River near Rocky
Mountain House has an average flow of 25 m3/s. There are some lakes in the upper reaches of the
river and its tributaries, but these do not provide sufficient control to regulate flows. Floods which
occur occasionally in the latter part of June and early July are caused by heavy rain in the drainage
basin east of the mountains and may be intensified if coincident with warm weather.
Figures 17 and 18 show the plan and profile of the river basin.
8.2
INVESTIGATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
For the purpose of this appraisal, the river is divided into three reaches, starting with Reach A from its
headwaters to Rocky Mountain House. This reach includes the tributaries of the Ram and Clearwater
Rivers. Reach B extends from Rocky Mountain House to Edmonton and includes the Brazeau River
tributary. Reach C extends from Edmonton eastward to the Saskatchewan border.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 17
© Hatch 2010/02
Cardinal Site
Izaak Site
Olympus Site
Big Horn Plant
Elk Site
Shunda Site
Rocky Mountain House Site
Gap Site
Phoenix Site
No
rth
Whirlpool Site
Chambers Creek Site
Rocky Mountain House
Sa
sk
at
c
Ra he
m wa
Ri n R
ve
iv
r
er
Job Site
Ri
ve
r
u
Brazea
River
Drayton Valley Site
Rocky Rapids Site
Ramparts Site
Big Bend Plant
Ramparts Site
Ba
ttl
e
Frontal Site
Thistle Site
Race Site
Sa
sk
a
Lloydminster
Strike Site
Thunder Site
No
rt h
Edmonton
Carvel Site
SASKATCHEWAN
tc
he
wa
n
Ri
ve
r
Hairy Hill Site
Lower Ram Site
Ram Forks Site
Clearwater Gap Site
r
ive
r R
e
t
a
arw
Cle
Lower Canyon Site
Middle Canyon Site
Upper Canyon Site
0
25
50
100
150
200
km
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
FIGURE 17
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
To meet the dual purposes of generating hydroelectric energy and increasing the low winter flow of
the North Saskatchewan River at Edmonton and downstream, an intensive search of possible storage
sites on the North Saskatchewan River and tributaries in Reach A and Reach B was carried out by
Calgary Power Ltd. (currently known as TransAlta) during the 1950's.
The most attractive topographic site in Reach A is the Bighorn on the main stem of the river above
Nordegg. However, the presence of a deep pervious river bed made development of this site
impractical in terms of the technology available in the late 1950's. Attention was then concentrated
on a site in Reach B termed the Brazeau site which was located some 25 miles upstream from the
Brazeau's confluence with the North Saskatchewan River. This site was later developed jointly by the
Provincial Government and Calgary Power Ltd. The dam was completed in 1963 and the first
generating unit was installed at the Big Bend power plant in 1965.
Concurrent with construction of the Brazeau project, further studies were made of the upper Brazeau
River and of neighbouring streams, such as the Blackstone, Nordegg and Pembina Rivers. Several
attractive dam sites exist on the upper reaches of the Brazeau. However, none of these studies
progressed beyond a very preliminary stage, all being abandoned when sufficient information was
presented to show them to be uneconomical at that time.
At the same time investigation of the main stem continued but no site was found more attractive than
the Bighorn site. Successful development of slurry trench methods for dealing with deep permeable
foundations during the early 1960's encouraged Calgary Power Ltd. and the Provincial Government
to review the Bighorn site. After detailed studies, a joint development agreement was reached
between the two concerned parties and the Bighorn project was completed in late 1972.
Only one potential dam site was located in Reach C, near Hairy Hill about 160 km east of
Edmonton, and this was investigated for purposes other than hydroelectric energy.
The existing plants and identified sites in the North Saskatchewan River basin are shown in Figures
17 and 18.
The storage and power developments at Bighorn and Brazeau have benefitted the City of Edmonton
in terms of water supply and sewage disposal. Generation of electric energy by means of thermal
plants in Edmonton has been aided by the increased flow and the refineries and chemical plants in
the industrial area east of Edmonton have also benefitted.
8.3
ENERGY POTENTIALS
The hydroelectric energy potentials of the North Saskatchewan River basin along with their basic
data are shown in Table 5. The explanatory discussions of the table are presented in Section 4, the
Athabasca River basin. Figure 19 shows the average flow and drainage area relationship for the main
river and the three major tributaries including the recording stations from which the relationships are
derived. Gauging stations on the lower reach of the North Saskatchewan River indicate a different
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 18
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
average flow and drainage area relationship than the upper reach, which accounts for the flattening
of the upper slope of the line from points 6 to 9.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 19
© Hatch 2010/02
1000.0
North Saskatchewan River
6
7
9
8
3
100.0
4
5
Average Flow (cms)
2
1
10
11
12
13
Brazeau River
Clearwater River
14
15
10.0
Ram River
1.0
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Drainage Area (Km2)
1. North Saskatchewan River at Saskatchewan Crossing - 05DA006
2. North Saskatchewan River at Whirlpool Point - 05DA009
3. North Saskatchewan River near Rocky Mountain House - 05DC001
4. North Saskatchewan River at Saunders - 05DC002
5. North Saskatchewan River below Bighorn Plant - 05DC010
6. North Saskatchewan River at Edmonton - 05DF001
7. North Saskatchewan River at Lea Park - 05EF003
8. North Saskatchewan River near Deer Creek - 05EF001
9. North Saskatchewan River at Prince Albert - 05GG001
10. Brazeau Riverbelow Big Bend (Brazeau) Plant - 05DD005
11. Brazeau River below Cardinal River - 05DD007
12. Clearwater River near Rocky Mountain House - 05DB001
13. Clearwater River above Limestone Creek - 05DB003
14. Clearwater River near Dovercourt - 05DB006
15. Ram River near the Mouth - 05DC006
FIGURE 19
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
Table 5 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the North Saskatchewan River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
TMHE
UDHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
REACH A- HEADWATER TO ROCKY MTN. HOUSE
0 - 10,900
0 - 127
869
WHIRLPOOL SITE
1,920
51
15
BIGHORN PLANT
2,500
60
95
GAP SITE
4,400
79
SHUNDA SITE
4,900
PHOENIX SITE
4,240
60%
2,540
1,450
720
480
360
50
30
10
10
10
79
380
220
110
70
50
83
26
130
70
40
20
20
7,200
102
82
500
290
140
100
70
CHAMBERS CREEK SITE
7,500
104
31
190
110
50
40
30
ROCKY MTN. HOUSE SITE
10,900
127
43
330
190
90
60
50
0 - 1,800
0 - 15
UPPER CANYON SITE
650
5
91
30
20
10
10
0
MIDDLE CANYON SITE
780
6
58
20
10
10
0
0
LOWER CANYON SITE
780
6
61
20
10
10
0
0
RAM FORKS SITE
1,550
12
91
70
40
20
10
10
LOWER RAM SITE
1,810
15
64
60
30
20
10
10
0 - 3,370
0 - 25
CLEARWATER GAP SITE
1,320
14
50
REACH B-ROCKY MTN. HOUSE TO EDMONTON
10,900 - 28,000
127 - 208
347
RAMPARTS SITE
12,900
139
69
580
330
170
110
80
BRAZEAU FORKS SITE
20,200
175
38
400
230
110
80
60
ROCKY RAPIDS SITE
21,150
179
42
450
260
130
90
60
DRAYTON VALLEY SITE
21,800
182
64
700
400
200
130
100
CARVEL SITE
24,900
196
67
790
450
230
150
110
0 - 7,000
0 - 58
1170
OLYMPUS SITE
780
21
114
150
90
40
30
20
JOB SITE
900
23
37
50
30
10
10
10
IZZAK SITE
1,290
27
64
100
60
30
20
10
RACE SITE
1,680
30
34
60
30
20
10
10
THISTLE SITE
1,810
31
76
140
80
40
30
20
THUNDER SITE
2,070
33
110
220
130
60
40
30
CARDINAL SITE
2,460
36
52
110
60
30
20
20
STRIKE SITE
2,720
38
61
140
80
40
30
20
FRONTAL SITE
2,850
38
43
100
60
30
20
10
ELK SITE
4,530
47
46
130
70
40
20
20
BIG BEND PLANT
6,800
56
126
RAM RIVER
CLEARWATER RIVER
BRAZEAU RIVER
1234
1173
408
560
1,070
60%
60%
340
640
190
370
100
180
60
120
39%
2,640
60%
60%
2,130
1,580
1,220
900
610
450
410
300
50
90
20
10
10
230
13%
160
110
80
140
80
40
30
20
600
340
170
110
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
300
397
320
120
40
3,550
552
355
Table 5 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the North Saskatchewan River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
TMHE
UDHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
REACH C-EDMONTON TO SASK. BORDER
HAIRY HILL SITE
TOTAL - NORTH SASKATCHEWAN BASIN
(m /s)
28,000 - 56,500
208 - 223
113
42,200
218
61
0 - 56,500
0 - 223
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
1,480
13,540
70%
1,040
8,270
20
590
4,720
40
300
2,360
60
200
1,570
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
150
1,180
805
26%
475
800
460
230
150
110
6,290
3,860
1,930
1,280
950
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
240
140
70
50
30
1,532
880
440
300
220
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
9.
THE PEACE RIVER BASIN
9.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Peace River is formed by the confluence of the Parsnip and Findlay Rivers, both of which rise in
and drain a large district lying along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in northern British
Columbia. Major tributaries of the Peace River in Alberta include the Smoky River and the Wabasca
River. The Smoky River rises in the Rocky Mountain area near Mt. Robson, gathers the runoff from
the northern part of the Alberta Rocky Mountains, flows in a general northerly direction for a
distance of 560 km and joins the Peace River about 3 km upstream of the Town of Peace River. The
Wabasca (sometimes referred to as the Wabiskaw) drains the central interior of northern Alberta and
joins the Peace River east of Fort Vermilion.
From the British Columbia-Alberta border to the Town of Peace River, the Peace flows in a valley up
to 270 metres deep, carved in highly-plastic, sandy, silty, clay shales of relatively low strength.
Downstream of Peace River town, the river turns northward, cutting a winding valley or gorge
roughly a mile wide which diminishes in depth from about 210 metres near Peace River to about 90
metres near Paddle Prairie. Beyond this gorge, the valley widens, the banks fall away and the river
gradient flattens. At Vermilion Chutes, the river cuts through an anticlinal exposure of limestone to
create a local head concentration of about 9 metres in a horizontal distance of approximately 2 km.
The river valley is deeply in filled with sands and gravel.
The valley of the Smoky River generally is steep-sided and fairly narrow with its middle and lower
reaches varying from 180 to 120 metres deep. The Wabasca River traverses a much flatter terrain and
its drainage course is less well defined because it passes through muskeg areas and contains
numerous small lakes and potholes.
The average flow of the Peace River at the town of Peace River is about 1,830 m3/s. The recorded
flow at the same location shows a maximum monthly flow of 10,400 m3/s and minimum monthly
flow of 200 m3/s. Its major tributary, the Smoky River has an average flow at Watino of about 342
m3/s, and has recorded a monthly minimum flow of 22 m3/s. The Wapiti, Kakwa and Little Smoky
Rivers are tributaries of the Smoky River and their average flows are 95 m3/s, 43 m3/s and 47 m3/s
respectively. They have been included in this inventory because of the relative size of their flows.
Figures 20 and 21 show the plan and profile of the river basin.
9.2
INVESTIGATIONS
The completion of the Portage Mountain Development (W.A.C Bennett) in British Columbia has
made Peace River flows downstream much more uniform by storing surplus summer flows for
release during the winter low flow period. In view of this, Calgary Power Ltd., Canadian Utilities,
Limited (parent of Alberta Power Limited) and the Alberta Water Resource Division jointly carried
out a reconnaissance survey of the Peace River in Alberta and a preliminary topographic and
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 20
© Hatch 2010/02
ac
Pe
Fort
Vermillion
i ve
e R
r
Lake
Claire
Vermillion Chutes Site
Peace River
Gorge Site
Wadlin Lake Site
Muddy River Site
Mile 251 Site
W
ab
as
ca
Ri
ve
r
BRITISH COLUMB
IA
Mile 232 Site
e
Peac
Rive
r
Peace
River
Dunvegan
Peace River Site
Dunvegan Site
Sm
y
ok
Ri
r
ve
19th Baseline Site
Watino Site
Grand Prarie
Meander Site
r
Wapiti Rive
Wapiti Site
18th Baseline Site
Cutbank Site
Kakwa Site
Kakwa
Sm
Bolton Site
R iver
ok
y
Ri
Smoky
Little
r
ve
R iver
Sulphur Site
0
25
50
100
150
FIGURE 20
200
km
PEACE RIVER BASIN
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
foundation investigation of the most attractive site near Dunvegan in the late 1970’s. Reach A from
the British Columbia border to Dunvegan has a total elevation drop of 41 metres which could be
completely developed at this site. A detailed government study of the Dunvegan site, completed in
1977, found this site to be developable but the site was not developed further at that time. Recently a
low head run of river development has been proposed at this site and it has been licensed by Glacier
Power for the development of this site. Construction had not begun on this development.
Reach B from Dunvegan to the Town of Peace River would appear to lack suitable dam site locations
because of the presence of weak and highly unstable Shaftesbury shale in the river banks. Reach C
from the Town of Peace River to Vermilion Chutes has a total fall of 52 metres in the gorge section
which could be developed at one or two sites. Various schemes to develop the 9 metre drop at
Vermilion Chutes were examined for Alberta Power Limited (currently known as ATCO Power) and
were not economic. Reach D from the Vermilion Chutes to the mouth of the Peace where it enters
the Slave River has a flat gradient and low banks, which, combined with the presence of Wood
Buffalo National Park, makes any development in this reach very impractical.
Studies carried out in the 1960's for Alberta Power Limited revealed that a large portion of the
potential on the Smoky River could be developed by sites as shown in Figures 20 and 21. However,
the Alberta Resources Railway and the pulp mill located near Grande Prairie may influence the
location of one or more of these sites. In the same period, two sites were noted on the Wabasca
River from the reconnaissance survey made for Alberta Power Limited.
9.3
ENERGY POTENTIALS
The hydroelectric energy potentials of the Peace River basin along with their basic data are shown in
Table 6. General explanatory discussions for the Athabasca River basin are also applicable to this
basin. Figure 22 is derived from the records of gauging stations as shown.
It is interesting to note that there are schemes which, if implemented, could have a beneficial effect
on hydro potentials of the Peace River. A project called the "McGregor Diversion" would divert a
flow of 217 m3/s from the Fraser River into the Peace River was considered in the 1970’s. This
project has been shelved for environmental reasons. Also, an additional hydro plant called “Site C”
has been and is currently being re-considered on the Peace River in British Columbia downstream
from the W.A.C. Bennett Dam.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 21
© Hatch 2010/02
10000
7
2
1
Average Flow (cms)
6
4
3
1000
5
8
Peace River
10
Smoky River
100
11
9
15
Wapiti River
12
16
14
18
Wabasca River
17
13
Little Smoky River
10
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Drainage Area (km2)
1. Peace River at Hudson Hope 07EF001
2. Peace River near Taylor 07FD002
3. Peace River at Dunvegan Bridge 07FD003
4. Peace River at Peace River 07HA001
5. Peace River at Fort Vermilion 07HF001
6. Peace River at Peace Point 07KC001
7. Peace River near Carcajou 07HD001
8. Peace River above Acles River 07HD010
9. Smoky River above Hells Creek 07GA001
10. Smoky River at Watino 07GJ001
11. Wapiti River near Grande Prarie 07GE001
12. Wapiti River above Mistanusk Creek 07GC001
13. Little Smoky River at Little Smoky 07GG002
14. Little Smoky River near Guy 07GH002
15. Wabasca River above Junction Peace River 07JD001
16. Wabasca River at Highway 88 07JD002
17. Wabasca River below Trout River 07JB002
18. Kakwa River near Grande Prarie 07GB002
FIGURE 22
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
PEACE RIVER BASIN
Table 6 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Peace River Basin
TMHE
CHARACTERISTICS
UDHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
PEACE RIVER
REACH A-B.C. BORDER TO DUNVEGAN
118,600 - 130,000
1474-1540
41
DUNVEGAN SITE
130,000
1,540
7
REACH B-DUNVEGAN TO PEACE RIVER
130,000 - 186,500
1540 - 1828
29
2,940
50%
1,470
840
420
280
0 - 51,800
0 - 348
1122
14,640
50%
7,320
4,180
2,090
1,390
SULPHUR SITE
2,900
67
76
310
180
90
60
40
BOLTON SITE
6,200
103
76
470
270
130
90
70
KAKWA SITE
10,900
142
152
1,300
740
370
250
190
CUTBANK SITE
12,200
152
75
690
390
200
130
100
18th BASELINE SITE
12,700
156
91
850
490
240
160
120
WAPITI SITE
28,700
248
69
1,030
590
290
200
150
MEANDER SITE
34,200
275
85
1,410
800
400
270
200
19th BASELINE SITE
34,200
275
87
1,440
820
410
270
210
WATINO SITE
37,000
287
75
1,290
740
370
250
180
PEACE RIVER SITE
51,500
347
53
1,110
630
320
210
160
KAKWA RIVER
520 - 3,630
11 - 31
701
890
50%
450
260
130
90
WAPITI RIVER
7,510 - 15,000
75 - 113
277
1,570
50%
790
450
230
0 - 13,200
0 - 54
1021
1,720
50%
860
490
186,500 - 277,100
1828 - 2208
81
9,830
60%
5,900
3,370
MILE 232
197,000
1,880
40
4,520
2,580
1,290
860
640
MILE 251
206,500
1,920
44
5,080
2,900
1,450
970
720
PEACE RIVER GORGE SITE
218,300
1,970
52
6,160
3,520
1,760
1,170
880
VERMILION CHUTES SITE
277,100
2,200
9
1,190
680
340
230
170
0 - 40,700
0 - 72
488
MUDDY RIVER SITE
35,200
60
73
260
150
70
50
40
WADLIN LAKE SITE
36,800
64
52
200
110
60
40
30
REACH D-VERMILION CHUTES TO MOUTH
277,100 - 297,000
2208 - 2282
24
SMOKY RIVER
LITTLE SMOKY RIVER
REACH C-PEACE RIVER TO VERMILION CHUTES
WABASCA RIVER
TOTAL OF THE PEACE RIVER BASIN
118,600 - 297,000
1474 - 2282
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
3,720
60%
2,230
1,270
640
420
320
1,580
900
450
300
230
210
1,470
840
420
280
210
1,040
0
0
0
0
0
60
450
260
130
90
60
150
110
790
450
230
150
110
250
160
120
860
490
250
160
120
1,680
1,120
840
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
320
180
90
60
50
5,470
3,120
1,570
1,040
780
650
940
3,240
39,490
40%
10%
380
320
220
110
70
370
190
120
90
50
180
90
60
50
19,720 11,260
5,640
3,740
2,800
0
0%
0
16,100 15,960
7,980
5,330
3,990
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
10.
THE RED DEER RIVER BASIN
10.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Red Deer River is a tributary of the South Saskatchewan River. It joins the main stem within the
Province of Saskatchewan and, for the purposes of this appraisal, is treated as an independent basin.
Rising in the Sawback Range of the Rocky Mountains, the Red Deer River flows easterly and north
easterly until it reaches the City of Red Deer. At this point it turns south easterly and joins the South
Saskatchewan River east of the Alberta boundary near Empress.
The drainage basin of this river differs from most Alberta streams in that its foothill region is fairly
extensive, whereas the mountainous area is relatively small. This is due to the fact that the Bow and
the North Saskatchewan Rivers have a common divide west of the Red Deer River, and thus cut off
its drainage from the main range of the Rocky Mountains.
The average flow of the river at the City of Red Deer is about 50 m3/s.
The plan, profiles and the average flow and drainage area relationship are shown in Figures 23, 24
and 25 respectively.
10.2
ENERGY POTENTIALS
Because of the relatively low flow and other uses for the water in the area, the development of
hydroelectric energy in the basin is unlikely except in conjunction with development for other
purposes such as what has occurred at Dickson Dam. Although the hydroelectric potential of that site
was examined and development appeared feasible the government did not construct a power plant
initially but rather made the necessary provisions in the design to facilitate later addition of a power
plant. The hydroelectric power plant was developed later by a private developer in the 1990’s.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 22
© Hatch 2010/02
Ardley Site
Dickson Dam Plant
Red Deer
Raven Site
Red
Site #9
Sundre
Dee
ver
r Ri
Site #11
Drumheller
SASKATCHEWAN
0
25
50
100
150
200
km
RED DEER RIVER BASIN
FIGURE 23
100.0
6
4
5
Average Flow (cms)
3
Red Deer River
1
2
10.0
1000
10000
100000
Drainage Area (Km2)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Red Deer River near Sundre - 05CA001
Red Deer River below Burnt Timber Creek - 05CA009
Red Deer River at Red Deer - 05CC002
Red Deer River at Drumheller - 05CE001
Red Deer River near Blindloss - 05CK004
Red Deer River near Empress - 05CK002
FIGURE 25
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
RED DEER RIVER BASIN
Table 7 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Red Deer River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
TMHE
UDHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
RED DEER RIVER
RED DEER RIVER
0 - 45,100
0-65
SITE #11
2,245
23
47
70
40
20
10
10
SITE #9
2,490
24
49
70
40
20
10
10
RAVEN SITE
5,300
31
22
40
20
10
10
10
DICKSON DAM PLANT
5,600
32
32
ARDLEY SITE
15,000
45
53
140
80
40
30
20
0 - 45,100
0-65
320
180
90
60
50
TOTAL OF THE RED DEER RIVER BASIN
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
1244
3,440
10%
340
190
100
60
50
70
3,440
340
190
100
60
50
70
53%
53%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
15
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
11.
THE SLAVE RIVER BASIN
11.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Slave River is formed where the Peace meets the Riviere des Rochers, the outlet of Lake
Athabasca. The Slave River terminates upon flowing into Great Slave Lake and is known thereafter as
the MacKenzie River. The Slave flows slightly west of north, with a total length of approximately 460
km. For nearly 160 km below Lake Athabasca it is easily navigable, but it then enters a series of
rapids generally known as the Smith Rapids. These rapids are caused by the outcrop of the Canadian
Shield.
The average flow of the Slave River at Fitzgerald is about 3,440 m3/s which is by far the largest flow
of all rivers in Alberta. The annual and seasonal variations of flow of the river are relatively small as
compared to all other rivers in the Province, due to the natural regulation provided by Lake
Athabasca and the reservoir regulation by the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the Peace River in British
Columbia. Figures 26 and 27 show the plan and profile of the Slave River basin.
11.2
INVESTIGATIONS
The large hydro energy potential of the Slave River has been recognized for many years. Examination
of this potential was made as early as 1923 by the Commission of Conservation Canada and the
amount of potential energy was until recently somewhat in excess of Alberta's requirements. In
1950, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company examined the series of rapids between Fort
Fitzgerald and Fort Smith as a source of power for its mining ventures. However, the amount of
power required was small and development schemes involving the use of only a small part of the
available flow were found uneconomic. As a result of the altering of water levels on the PeaceAthabasca Delta during the dry years immediately following construction of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam
on the Peace River in B.C., a study was made by Calgary Power Ltd. to determine whether the river
could be developed in such a way as to help restore the ecology of the Delta, while at the same time
providing electric energy to Alberta. This study was based on a site at Mountain Rapids and was
updated in 1977. The site was again studied in the early 1980’s when the Alberta government
undertook a more in depth investigation of the technical, economic, social, and environmental
aspects of the development of Slave River hydro potential. These studies indicated that energy from a
development may be somewhat more expensive than the energy from the coal-fired plants now in
operation, but suggested factors which could change the comparison with coal-fired generation and
also suggested additional benefits associated with developing this hydro potential. The site is again
being considered by a TransCanada/ATCO Power recently.
11.3
ENERGY POTENTIALS
The additional flow to the Slave River from local runoff between Lake Athabasca and the border
between Alberta and the Northwest Territories is negligible as compared with large inflows from the
Peace River and Lake Athabasca. Therefore, the average flow of 3,440 m3/s at Fitzgerald is used to
compute energy potentials throughout the whole river inside Alberta.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 23
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
The Mountain Rapids and Alternative 4 sites are located within Alberta very close to the border of
the Northwest Territories. It is considered practical to develop the total elevation drop of the river
inside Alberta at this single site or a site just upstream of the border. The hydro and hydroelectric
energy potentials of the Slave River along with their basic data are shown in Table 8.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 24
© Hatch 2010/02
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Fitzgerald
Alternative 4 Site
25
50
100
150
200
km
AN
SASKATCHEW
At L a
ha ke
ba
sc
a
Slave River
0
FIGURE 26
SLAVE RIVER BASIN
Table 8 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the Slave River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
UDHE
TMHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
4,360
2,180
1,450
1,090
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
SLAVE RIVER
SLAVE RIVER
ALTERNATIVE 4 SITE
TOTAL OF THE SLAVE RIVER BASIN
599,300 - 611,200 3,370 - 3,440
611,200
599,300 - 611,200
3,440
3,370 - 3,440
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
41
8,490
90%
7,640
35
8,490
7,640
4,360
2,180
1,450
1,090
0
0%
0
7,250
4,140
2,070
1,380
1,030
7,250
4,140
2,070
1,380
1,030
390
220
110
70
60
390
220
110
70
60
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
12.
THE SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
12.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The South Saskatchewan River originates at the confluence of the Bow and Oldman Rivers, about 70
km west of Medicine Hat.
The Bow River is the smaller of the two branches. It rises in Bow Lake, north of the Kicking Horse
Pass at an elevation of 1,900 metres above sea level and flows in a southerly direction until its
junction with the Pipestone River near Lake Louise station, whence it flows easterly through Calgary
to its confluence with the Oldman River.
The Bow River has a number of tributaries which drain large tracts of mountain and foothill regions
of the Cordillera lying to the north and south of the area drained by the main stream. In the Rocky
Mountain region, the river is joined by the Pipestone and Cascade Rivers from the north, and the
Spray and Kananaskis from the south. In the foothills region the tributaries are the Ghost River from
the north and Jumpingpound Creek from the southwest. Although the Elbow and Highwood Rivers
do not enter the Bow until it reaches the Interior Plains, they both rise in the Cordillera.
One of the most noticeable characteristics of the Bow River drainage basin is the number of lakes on
the main stream and its more westerly branches. The Bow and Hector Lakes are located on the main
stem; Lake Louise is on the Louise Creek; Spray Lake on the Spray River; Lake Minnewanka on the
Cascade River; and the two Kananaskis Lakes on the Kananaskis River. There are also innumerable
small lakes on the above mentioned, as well as on other small streams.
The average recorded flow of the Bow River at Calgary is about 90 m3/s. The recorded maximum and
minimum monthly flows are 472 m3/s and 19 m3/s respectively.
Three major irrigation canals have been constructed diverting water from the Bow River to serve an
irrigable area to the east and southeast of Calgary. A firm regulated river flow is required between the
months of May and September to serve the irrigated areas.
The Oldman River is the larger of the two branches of the South Saskatchewan River. Formed
between the Rocky Mountains and the Livingstone Range in the Cordillera area, it first flows south
easterly until joined by the Crowsnest and Castle Rivers and then flows generally east to its junction
with the Bow River. Several small tributaries join the main stream. Two of the larger ones are the
Belly River with its tributary, the Waterton River, and the St. Mary River which is the conveyance
river for the Canadian share of the Milk River.
The territory drained by the Oldman River consists of mountains, foothills and prairies, and the
geological formations called the Cordillera and Interior Plains. The mountain region is quite
extensive and is divided into the Main Range and the Livingstone Range of the Rocky Mountains.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 25
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
The average recorded flow of the Oldman River near Lethbridge is about 82 m3/s, with recorded
maximum and minimum monthly flows of 941 m3/s and 6 m3/s respectively. This stream and its
tributaries are subject to high flows caused by the melting of accumulated snow in the upper reaches
during the spring and summer months. Floods of exceptional magnitude may occur following very
intensive rains.
There is considerable development along the Oldman River and its tributaries serving several
irrigation districts.
The South Saskatchewan River flows in an easterly direction to Medicine Hat from the confluence of
the Bow and the Oldman Rivers and then turns north eastwards flowing through a sparsely populated
area to the Saskatchewan border near the Town of Empress.
The plan and profile of the South Saskatchewan River basin are shown in Figures 28 and 29.
12.2
INVESTIGATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
Hydroelectric development on the Bow River started as early as 1896. The oldest plant still in
operation is called the Horseshoe Plant, which was commissioned in 1911. There are now eleven
plants, with an average annual energy output of 837 GWh, which are operated on the Bow River and
its tributaries above the City of Calgary. Undeveloped portions of the Bow River above Calgary have
been studied in detail and the remaining sites appear to be too small to be of interest at this time.
Downstream from Calgary, hydroelectric development on the Bow would have a subsidiary role
because of extensive irrigation development. A study was done on the Eyremore site on the Bow
River near Brooks. The main purpose of a project at this site would be to improve the water supply to
the Eastern Irrigation District which is currently supplied by water diverted from the Bow River at the
Bassano Dam. A small powerhouse could be built at the Eyremore Site if the project were built.
However, the site conditions and overall cost were not particularly favourable and no more detailed
studies have been under taken since 1977.
A more detailed study of the hydroelectric potential of the Bassano Dam was undertaken. This study
compared the costs of a variety of conventional turbines to the costs of a Straflo turbine concept. The
results of the study indicated that a powerhouse could be established at the Bassano Dam at
reasonable cost, although very little water would be available for power generation during the
summer because of increasing irrigation diversions. Upstream storage would provide ample flows
during the remainder of the year.
There are currently eight plants, with an average annual energy output of 331 GWh, which are
operated on the Oldman River, its tributaries and irrigation canals. The stream flows available for
hydroelectric developments on the Oldman River are very limited because of the irrigation
development served by this river and its tributaries. Because of the relatively low flow and other uses
for the water in the area, the development of hydroelectric energy in the basin is unlikely except in
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 26
© Hatch 2010/02
t
an
Pl
aw
te
sp
Si
ar
Be
ow
nb t
le
G
an
Pl
st ite
t
S
ho
G e ll
an
Pl
ss
s
Ru s k i
nt
n a Pl a
na
de
Ka
Ca
a
sc
Da
m
le
te
Si
Rapid Narrows Site
Pocaterra Plant
Interlakes Plant
Ol
dm
an
Gap Site
Ri
ve
r
Bo
w
Ri
v
er
Riv
er
hewan
Three Sisters Plant
Eyremore Site
So
Fort Macleod Site
Fort Macleod
SASKATCHEWAN
nt
te
Si Pla
e
or
dn sho ite
S
Ra rse
w
te
i
t
Ho l b o d S
an
E
r
Pl
Fo
er
es e
rri
Ba c D S i t
La rcs
A
Spray Plant
Meridian Site
Saskatc
e
or
d
ea
nm
Ca
Calgary
Rundle Plant
Lethbridge
uth
Medicine Hat
Chin Chute
Oldman River Site
Castle Site
Irrican Hydro Plant
Raymond Plant
Oldman River Hydro Plant
Taylor Chute
Waterton Plant
St. Mary's Plant
Belly River Plant
MONTANA
0
25
50
100
150
200
km
SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
FIGURE 28
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
conjunction with development for other purposes such as what has occurred at Oldman Dam,
Waterton Dam and St. Mary’s Dam. Although the hydroelectric potential of those sites were
examined by the government, it did not construct any power plants initially but rather made the
necessary provisions in the designs to facilitate later addition of a power plant. The hydroelectric
power plants were developed later by private developers in the 1990’s.
Several on-stream reservoir sites were investigated as part of a broad water resource study of the
Oldman River basin, initiated in 1974 because of water supply problems in the heavily irrigated
basin. The Oldman River Dam was constructed in the 1980’s to help address those concerns.
A number of drop structures which have a substantial energy potential exist in the irrigation districts
and six hydroelectric developments have been developed to take advantage of this potential. All of
these projects have highly variable seasonal energy outputs.
On the main stem of the South Saskatchewan, a site termed the Meridian Site could be developed to
accommodate the total elevation drop between Medicine Hat and the border. However, Defence
Research Board installations which border the river in the Suffield Experimental Station might limit
the developable head to about 12 metres.
For the purpose of appraising the hydro energy potential, the two tributaries, the Bow and Oldman
Rivers and the South Saskatchewan River, have each been divided into two reaches. Reach A of the
Bow River extends from its source to the City of Calgary. This reach includes all of the tributaries on
which hydro developments have been constructed. Reach B of the Bow River extends from the City
of Calgary to its confluence with the Oldman River.
For the Oldman River, Reach A extends from its source to the City of Lethbridge. Reach B
incorporates only a short length of river from Lethbridge to the confluence of the Oldman and Bow
Rivers.
Reach A of the South Saskatchewan River commences at its origin (the confluence of the Bow and
the Oldman River) and extends to the City of Medicine Hat. Reach B commences at Medicine Hat
and extends in a north easterly direction to intersect the Alberta-Saskatchewan border near the Town
of Empress.
The existing plants and identified sites in the South Saskatchewan River basin are shown in Figures
28 and 29.
12.3
ENERGY POTENTIALS
The hydroelectric energy potentials of the South Saskatchewan River basin along with their basic
data are shown in Table 9. The general explanatory discussions of previous sections are also
applicable here. Unlike other large rivers in the Province, the flows of the South Saskatchewan River
and its two branches have been highly regulated by existing development. Hydro development on
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 27
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
the Bow River has changed the pattern of the flow and irrigation development on the Bow and
Oldman Rivers has not only changed the pattern of the flow but also the quantity of the flow. A
portion of the diverted water used for irrigation will return to the river downstream, but most of it is
lost to the atmosphere through plant evapotranspiration.
Figure 30 is based on the actual recorded data at the Water Survey of Canada gauging records and
the theoretical energy potentials are computed using these flows.
It is estimated that the irrigation requirement from the Bow River below Calgary and the Oldman
River below Lethbridge is approximately 50 percent of the total available flow. Consequently, a
development factor of less than 50 percent was used in computing the total developable
hydroelectric potential on the South Saskatchewan River system downstream from Calgary and
Lethbridge.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 28
© Hatch 2010/02
1000.0
3
South Saskatchewan River
10
100.0
9
Average Flow (cms)
7
8
Bow River
15
6
11
18
4
1
2
5
12
19
17
16
Oldman River
13
10.0
14
1.0
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Drainage Area (Km2)
1. South Saskatchewan River at Medicine Hat - 05AJ001
2. South Saskatchewan River at Highway 41 - 05AK001
3. South Saskatchewan River near Lemsford - 05HB001
4. South Saskatchewan River at Saskatoon - 05HG001
5. South Saskatchewan River at St. Louis - 05HH001
6. Bow River at Banff - 05BB001
7. Bow River near Seebe - 05BE004
8. Bow River at Calgary - 05BH004
9. Bow River below Bearspaw Dam - 05BH008
10. Bow River below Carseland Dam- 05BM002
11. Bow River Below Bassano Dam - 05BM004
12. Bow River near the Mouth - 05BN012
13. Oldman River near Waldron's Corner - 05AA023
14. Oldman River near Cowley - 05AA001
15. Oldman River near Brocket - 05AA024
16. Oldman River near Fort Macleod- 05AB007
17. Oldman River near Monarch - 05AD019
18. Oldman River near Lethbridge - 05AD007
19. Oldman River near the Mouth- 05AD006
FIGURE 30
AVERAGE FLOW - DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIP
SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
Table 9 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the South Saskatchewan River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
TMHE
UDHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
BOW RIVER
REACH A-HEADWATER TO CALGARY
LAC DES ARCS SITE
0 - 9,300
0 - 88
960
4,100
66
20
3,470
50%
1,740
990
500
330
250
KANANASKIS PLANT
22
94
56%
19
HORSESHOE PLANT
22
84
68%
14
RUSSELL SITE
5,400
84
GHOST PLANT
43
34
173
39%
80
50
20
20
10
220
130
60
40
30
6,700
86
20
100
60
30
20
10
GLENBOW SITE
7,800
87
30
160
90
50
30
20
CASCADE RIVER
CASCADE PLANT
15
0 - 650
0 - 14
813
650
14
105
SPRAY RIVER DIVERSION
392
THREE SISTERS PLANT
SPRAY PLANT
RUNDLE PLANT
KANANASKIS RIVER
0 - 950
0 - 19
70
340
40%
140
80
40
30
100%
250
140
70
50
16%
40
4
16%
3
274
210
23%
103
98
73
17%
50
800
20%
160
90
50
30
20
INTERLAKES PLANT
38
9
19%
5
POCATERRA PLANT
66
29
22%
15
BARRIER PLANT
46
40
35%
13
ELBOW RIVER
1060
730
0 - 1200
0 - 23
FORD SITE
345
8
49
20
10
10
0
0
ELBOW SITE
395
9
68
40
20
10
10
10
REACH B-CALGARY TO CONFLUENCE
9,300 - 25,900
88 - 96
335
DALEMEAD SITE
15,800
92
76
420
240
120
80
60
EYREMORE SITE
21,500
94
40
230
130
70
40
30
1,860
10%
20%
70
370
40
210
20
110
10
70
140
110
88
50
30
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
83
50
20
20
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
20
1405
220
17
20
52
250
47%
430
51
RADNOR SITE
BEARSPAW PLANT
760
10
50
Table 9 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of the South Saskatchewan River Basin
CHARACTERISTICS
TMHE
UDHE
DHE
ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
HEAD
ENERGY
FACTOR
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(m)
(GWh)
%
(GWh)
DRAINAGE
AVERAGE
GROSS
AREA
FLOW
3
RDHE - I
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER, TRIBUTARY, REACH AND SITE
2)
(km
(m /s)
20
40
60
80
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
OLDMAN RIVER
REACH A-HEADWATER TO LETHBRIDGE
0 - 9,100
0 - 50
GAP SITE
1,200
10
67
40
20
10
10
10
OLDMAN RIVER SITE
4,200
35
50
110
60
30
20
20
OLDMAN RIVER PLANT
4,900
38
65
FORT MACLEOD SITE
8,800
49
33
100
60
30
20
10
0 - 1150
0 - 10
1,000
9
49
15
40
CASTLE RIVER
CASTLE SITE
WATERTON RIVER / CANAL
1189
1064
2,220
20%
440
250
130
80
60
115
320
10%
30
20
10
10
41%
100%
20
10
10
0
0
11
43%
3
WATERTON PLANT
14
56%
3
15
270
130
100%
130
70
40
20
20
10
10
20
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BELLY RIVER PLANT
ST. MARY'S RIVER / CANAL
40
32
30
20
75
20
ST MARY'S PLANT
16
81%
2
TAYLOR CHUTE
45
40%
13
RAYMOND PLANT
50
44
60
38%
18
IRRICANA HYDRO PLANT
50
15.2
20
33%
7
CHIN CHUTE PLANT
50
40.5
50
52%
11
9,100 - 29,800
50 - 83
183
740
10%
70
40
20
10
10
70
40
20
10
10
REACH A-CONFLUENCE TO MEDICINE HAT
55,700 - 59,100
183 - 186
37
410
10%
40
20
10
10
10
40
20
10
10
10
REACH B-MEDICINE HAT TO SASK BORDER
59,100 - 67,900
186 - 192
82
930
50%
470
270
130
90
70
0
0
0
0
0
RAPID NARROWS SITE
60,000
186
12
130
70
40
20
20
MERIDIAN SITE
67,900
192
67
770
440
220
150
110
0 - 67,900
0 - 192
2,450
1,400
710
470
340
1,120
640
320
210
160
REACH B-LETHBRIDGE TO CONFLUENCE
SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
TOTAL - SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN BASIN
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
12,220
3,930
2,230
1,140
740
560
1,169
39%
415
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
13.
THE PROVINCE AS A WHOLE
Table 10 summarizes the hydroelectric energy potential of the nine river basins and gives the total for
the Province. The table shows that five basins, the Athabasca, North Saskatchewan, Peace, Slave and
South Saskatchewan Rivers, contain 99 percent of the estimated ultimate developable hydroelectric
energy of 53,000 gigawatt hours per year - or 42,000 gigawatt hours at identified sites. These figures
refer to what might be developed under favourable economic and other circumstances over a long
period into the future.
The energy presently developed is essentially all in the North Saskatchewan and South Saskatchewan
basins and totals 2,050 gigawatt hours per year, only 4 percent of the total potential. The current
install hydroelectric capacity is 907 MW.
The Dunvegan Hydroelectric project is currently licensed for a 100 MW run of river development
which could be online in 3 to 5 years. Given the long lead times necessary to plan and complete
most major hydro projects, no other significant additions to the hydro capacity of Alberta can be
expected before 2020. Increasing fossil fuel costs appear to be making hydro development
increasingly attractive. Coupled with the increased interest in conservation and reduction of
dependence on non-renewable resources, there is a reasonable possibility of significant development
soon after 2020. The timing of future developments will be affected by the rising demand for electric
energy, the diminishing supply and rising costs of fossil fuels, the possibilities of multi-purpose
development and the social and environmental impacts of the developments. Hatch, however,
would not expect to see the development of more than 10 - 20 percent of the ultimate potential
within the next 30 or so years.
The Slave, Peace, Smoky and Athabasca Rivers within the northern half of the Province, have the
largest hydroelectric energy potentials of the Alberta Rivers. The decision to develop these rivers will
depend mainly on energy demand and economic viability in relation to the evaluation of social and
environmental impact.
The rivers of the North Saskatchewan, South Saskatchewan and Red Deer flow through the most
densely populated areas of Alberta. The 23 existing hydro plants constructed primarily in these three
basins generated about 4 percent of the total electric energy of Alberta in 2009. There is also an
increasing demand from these rivers for domestic, municipal, industrial, irrigation and recreation
uses as the population expands. Any future hydroelectric development on these rivers will likely be
just a component of a multipurpose project and plant development will likely occur mainly in the
interest of energy conservation. Such development will use renewable hydro energy which would
otherwise be wasted.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 29
© Hatch 2010/02
Table 10 - Hydroelectric Energy Potential of Alberta
TMHE
UDHE
DHE
RDHE - I
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ENERGY
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
(GWh)
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
ATHABASCA
24,970
13,050
7,450
3720
2,477
1,870
7
55%
1
CHURCHILL
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
HAY
1,030
100
60
30
20
10
0
MILK
140
0
0
0
0
0
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN
13,540
8,270
4,720
2360
1,570
PEACE
39,490
19,720
11,260
5640
RED DEER
3,440
340
190
SLAVE
8,490
7,640
SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN
12,220
3,930
TOTAL OF ALBERTA
103,360
ANNUAL CAPACITY CAPACITY ANNUAL
RDHE - U
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
ANNUAL
MW POWER AT CAPACITY
FACTOR OF
ENERGY
FACTOR OF
RIVER BASIN
53,050
Abbreviation:
TMHE: Theoretical Maximum Hydroelectric Energy Potential
UDHE -: Ultimate Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential
DHE: Developed Hydroelectric Energy
RDHE-I: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Identified Sites
RDHE-U: Remaining Developable Hydroelectric Energy Potential at Unidentified Sites
ENERGY
FACTOR
(GWh)
%
INSTALLED ENERGY
MW
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
(GWh)
20
40
60
80
9,620
8,840
4,430
2,960
2,240
2,873
1,650
820
550
410
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
60
30
20
10
0
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
140
80
40
30
20
1,180
805
26%
475
6,290
3,860
1,930
1,280
950
1,532
880
440
300
220
3,740
2,800
0
0%
0
16,100
15,960
7,980
5,330
3,990
5,470
20
40
60
80
100
60
50
70
53%
15
320
180
90
60
50
0
0
0
0
0
4,360
2180
1,450
1,090
0
0%
0
7,250
4,140
2,070
1,380
1,030
390
220
110
70
60
2,230
1140
740
560
1,169
39%
415
2,450
1,400
710
470
340
1,120
640
320
210
160
30,270
15,170
10,057
7,560
2,050
43%
907
42,030
34,380
17,210
11,480
8,600
11,625
3,550
1,800
1,240
960
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
BIBLIOGRAPHY
For this report Hatch did not review all studies cited in the previous bibliography. However, the
previous bibliography is presented here in its entirety as a reference with new references added at
the end.
ATHABASCA RIVER BASIN
1. "Athabasca River Power Investigations", February 1954, T. M. Schulte and P. C. Roxburgh of
Calgary Power Ltd.
2. "Preliminary Report on the Power Potential of the Athabasca River between Athabasca &
McMurray", January 1955, Montreal Engineering Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
3. "Helicopter Reconnaissance of Athabasca River, Swift Current Rapids to McMurray", November
1962, J. D. Mollard & Associates for Calgary Power Ltd.
4. "Reconnaissance Field Trip to Baptiste Damsite", August 1962, J. D. Mollard & Associates for
Calgary Power Ltd.
5. "Upgrading of cost estimate for Crooked Rapids Hydro Site, developed without benefit of
upstream storage", November 1971, Montreal Engineering Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
6. "The storage potential of Lesser Slave Lake", 1952, J. L. Reid of Department of Water Resources,
Province of Alberta, T. F. Schulte and P. C. Roxburgh of Calgary Power Ltd.
7. "The Regulation of Lesser Slave Lake", September 1965, Montreal Engineering Company, Limited
for Alberta Water Resources Division.
8. "Airphoto study of Sawdy and Baptiste Damsites on Athabasca River", January 1962, J. D. Mollard
& Associates for Calgary Power Ltd.
9. "Athabasca River Regulation - Preliminary Studies and Reconnaissance", January 1966, Gibb,
Underwood & McLellan and Lockwood Survey Corporation Ltd. for Alberta Water Resources
Division.
10. "Preliminary Study of the Clearwater River for Hydro-Electric Development", June 1964, R. G.
Jones of Canadian Utilities Limited.
11. "Athabasca River Power Development - Crooked Rapids Dam Feasibility Study" April 1975,
Environmental Planning Division, Alberta Department of the Environment.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 30
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
PEACE RIVER BASIN
12. "Reconnaissance Study of Geology and Possible Damsites along the Peace River Valley in
Alberta", April 1964, J. D. Mollard and Associates for Calgary Power Ltd.
13. "Dunvegan Hydro Site - Preliminary Appraisal, July 1968, Montreal Engineering Company,
Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
14. "Subsurface Investigation of a Proposed Peace River Damsite about 1% miles west of Dunvegan",
December 1965, Bernard, Hoggan Engineering and Testing, Ltd. for Alberta Water Resources
Division.
15. "Mile 232 and Mile 251 Hydro Sites on the Peace River – Preliminary Appraisal", December
1968, Montreal Engineering Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
16. "An office Study of the Smoky River for Hydro-Electric Development, October 1963, R. Nurse of
Canadian Utilities, Limited.
17. "Preliminary Report on the Hydro-Electric Development of the Smoky River", January 1964,
Balfour, Beatty & Co., Limited for Canadian Utilities Limited.
18. "The 19th Baseline Area - Smoky River, Preliminary Investigation", 1964, Balfour, Beatty & Co.,
Limited for Canadian Utilities, Limited
19. "Supplementary Report on the 19th Baseline Hydro-Electric Project", July 1968, Balfour Beatty
Power Consultants Canada Limited for Canadian Utilities, Limited.20. "Supplementary Report on the
19th Baseline Hydro-Electric Project, Smoky River, Alberta", Revised: April 1969, Balfour Beatty
Power Consultants Canada Limited for Canadian Utilities, Limited.
20. "Supplementary Report on the 19th Baseline Hydro-Electric Project", Smokey River, Alberta”,
Revised: April 1969, Balfour Beatty Power Consultants Canada Limited for Canadian Utilities,
Limited.
21. "The Watino Preliminary Site Investigation - Smoky River", July 1965, Balfour Beatty Power
Consultants Canada Limited for Canadian Utilities, Limited.
22. "Studies for a Kakwa Site Diversion Dam on the Smoky River", July 1966, Balfour Beatty Power
Consultants Canada Limited for Alberta Water Resources Division.
23. "Preliminary Survey of Possible Hydro-Electric Developments in North-Western Alberta",
December 1968, Balfour Beatty Power Consultants Canada Limited for Canadian Utilities, Limited.
24. "Feasibility Study - Dunvegan Hydro Power Site", January 1977 Alberta Hydro Committee.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 31
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
25. "Alberta-British Columbia Studies on Peace River Power Development December, 1976.
NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
26. "Notes on Storage and Power Sites on the North Saskatchewan River", August 1964, Calgary
Power Ltd. and Montreal Engineering Company, Limited.
27. "Storage of the North Saskatchewan River at Bighorn, June 1966, Montreal Engineering
Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
28. "Preliminary Airphoto Study of Geology, Topography, Drainage and Diversion Schemes between
North Saskatchewan River at Horburg and Nordegg River in TP. 44, RGE. 11 & 12, W 5th, May
1964, J. D. Mollard & Associates for Calgary Power Ltd.
29. "Summaries of Studies on Upper Brazeau Storage and Power Developments", June 1963,
Montreal Engineering Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
30. "Reconnaissance Engineering - Geology Study, Brazeau Forks Site and Vicinity", December
1959, J. D. Mollard & Associates for Calgary Power Ltd.
RED DEER RIVER BASIN
31. "Red Deer River Flow Regulation Planning Studies", June 1975 Environmental Planning Division,
Alberta Department of the Environment.
32. "Preliminary Report on the Installation of a Hydroelectric Facility at the Proposed Red Deer River
Development", November 1978 Montreal Engineering Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
33. "Preliminary Engineering Report - Dickson Dam Red Deer River, May 1979, Underwood
McLellan (1977) Ltd. for Alberta Department of the Environment.
SLAVE RIVER BASIN
34. "A Preliminary Appraisal of the Hydroelectric Development of the Slave River", June 1971,
Montreal Engineering Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
35. "1977 Re-appraisal of the Hydroelectric Potential of the Slave River", December 1977, Monenco
Consultants, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER BASIN
36. "Storage on the Bow River below Bassano", (Eyremore), November 1967, Montreal Engineering
Company, Limited for Calgary Power Ltd.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 32
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
37. "Office Airphoto Study of Geology - Rapid Narrows Site, South Saskatchewan River, August
1962, J. D. Mollard & Associates for Calgary Power Ltd.
38. "Feasibility Study of Low Head Hydro Energy Generation at Bassano Dam, June 1978 Acres
Consulting Services Limited for the Energy Resources Conservation Board.
39. "Oldman River Basin Phase II Studies - Hydroelectric Energy Potential", June 1978, Energy
Resources Conservation Board.
OTHERS
40. "Water Supply for the Saskatchewan-Nelson Basin", 1972, Saskatchewan Nelson Basin Board.
41. "Historical Streamflow Summary to 1970 - Alberta", 1972, Water Survey of Canada, Canada
Department of the Environment.
42. "Historical Streamflow Summary to 1970 - Saskatchewan", 1972, Water Survey of Canada,
Canada Department of the Environment.
43. "Historical Streamflow Summary - Alberta - to 1976", 1977.
44. "Historical Streamflow Summary - Saskatchewan - to 1976", 1977.
45. "Surface Water Data, Alberta, 1967 to 1978", Water Survey of Canada, Canada Department of
the Environment.
46. "Selected Characteristics of Streamflow in Alberta", 1970, Research Council of Alberta and
others.
47. "Surface Water Supplies and Water Power of Alberta, Their Present and Ultimate Uses",
December 1948, Alberta Water Resources Division and Alberta Power Commission.
48. "Alberta, A Natural History", 1967, W. G. Hardy, Editor-in-Chief Distributed by M. G. Hurtig,
Publishers.
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 33
© Hatch 2010/02
Alberta Utilities Commission - Update on
Alberta's Hydroelectric Energy Resources - February 26, 2010
NEW REFERENCES
49. ”The Hydro And Hydro Electric Energy Potential of Alberta - A Preliminarily Appraisal“, April
1973, The Energy Resources Conservation Board.
50. ” Alberta Hydroelectric Energy Resources“, May 1981, The Energy Resources Conservation
Board.
51. "Slave River Hydro Feasibility Study", June 1982, Slave River Steering Committee.
52. "Re-Evaluation of the Dunvegan Hydroelectric Project", June 1983, Acres - Monenco.
53. "Provincial Inventory of Potential Water Storage Sites and Diversion Scenarios", Sept 2005, MPE
Engineering Ltd.
54. Water Survey of Canada (WSC) website: http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca/hydat/H2O
ISO 9001
AUC Energy Study, Rev. 1, Page 34
© Hatch 2010/02
Suite 700, 840 7th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3G2
Tel (403) 269 9555 Š Fax (403) 266 5736