Hydro-Electric Development in California

Scientific American | August 2nd, 1913

A glance at a map of California similar to that accompanying this article, on which is portrayed the veritable network of long-distance transmission lines that mark th

A glance at a map of California similar to that accompanying this article, on which is portrayed the veritable network of long-distance transmission lines that mark the course of hydro-electric development from end to end of the State, might convey to one not acquainted with actual conditions, the impression that there is but little left undeveloped of the sources of water-power with which this wonderland of the West abounded when first adventurous man started out in his now far-reaching enterprise among the head-waters of our mountain streams. This impression has, indeed, been circulated widely by those who in pursuit of a. policy of so-called conservation would hinder the development of California/s natural resources, and so, her progress and advancement. What foundation it has in fact may be gathered from certain statistics to hand. Mr. M.O. Leighton, Chief Hydrographer of the United States Geological Survey at Washington, in an article on “Water-power in the United States," published in the May number, 1909, of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, writes: “The “water power plants in the United States make productive use of only 5,500,000 horse-power, less than one fortieth of that ultimately available.” The report of the United States Geological Survey upon California, published March, 1912, gives the following figures for our State: Potential horse-power development on a basis of 90 per cent efiiciency; minimum 4,109,000, estimated maximum 9,382,000; on a basis of 75 per cent efficiency, minimum 3,424,000, estimated maximum 7,818,000.

Hydroeconomic modeling of sustainable groundwater management

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | March 23rd, 2017

In 2014, California passed legislation requiring the sustainable management of critically over-drafted groundwater basins, located primarily in the Central Valley agricu

In 2014, California passed legislation requiring the sustainable management of critically over-drafted groundwater basins, located primarily in the Central Valley agricultural region. Hydroeconomic modeling of the agricultural economy, groundwater, and surface water systems is critically important to simulate potential transition paths to sustainable management of the basins. The requirement for sustainable groundwater use by 2040 is mandated for many overdrafted groundwater basins that are decoupled from environmental and river flow effects. We argue that, for such cases, a modeling approach that integrates a biophysical response function from a hydrologic model into an economic model of groundwater use is preferable to embedding an economic response function in a complex hydrologic model as is more commonly done. Using this preferred approach, we develop a dynamic hydroeconomic model for the Kings and Tulare Lake subbasins of California and evaluate three groundwater management institutions—open access, perfect foresight, and managed pumping. We quantify the costs and benefits of sustainable groundwater management, including energy pumping savings, drought reserve values, and avoided capital costs. Our analysis finds that, for basins that are severely depleted, losses in crop net revenue are offset by the benefits of energy savings, drought reserve value, and avoided capital costs. This finding provides an empirical counter example to the Gisser and Sanchez Effect.

Hydrogeologic evaluation and numerical simulation of the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada and California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 1997

Hydropower capacity factors trending down in the United States

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | June 27th, 2024

Impacts of California’s Five-Year (2012-2016) Drought on Hydroelectricity Generation

Pacific Institute | April 13th, 2017

The severe hydrological drought afflicting California between 2012 and 2016 has ended, with an extremely wet winter beginning in October 2016. That five-year per

The severe hydrological drought afflicting California between 2012 and 2016 has ended, with an extremely wet winter beginning in October 2016. That five-year period was the driest and hottest in the instrumental record going back to the late 1800s. Impacts on communities, ecosystems, farmers, and the economy were widespread but have been unevenly distributed. The Pacific Institute has regularly analyzed the consequences of California droughts, beginning with comprehensive assessments of the 1987-1992 drought (Gleick and Nash 1991, Nash 1993), the 2007-2009 drought (Christian-Smith et al. 2011), and this most recent drought (Cooley et al. 2015, Gleick 2015, Cooley et al. 2016, Feinstein et al. 2017). This analysis is the third assessment of the impacts of the drought on hydropower production and greenhouse gas emissions from California’s energy sector (Gleick 2015, Gleick 2016). This analysis finds that during the five years ending September 30, 2016 (the end of the 2016 “water year”), hydropower generation was substantially below average, and the associated economic cost to California ratepayers was approximately $2.45 billion dollars. The additional combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation also led to a 10 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions from California’s in-state power plants (CARB 2015) along with increased emissions of other pollutants.

Impacts of California’s Ongoing Drought: Hydroelectricity Generation

Pacific Institute | March 17th, 2015

California’s hottest and driest drought in recorded history is shifting the sources of energy for electricity with adverse economic and environmental consequences. The

California’s hottest and driest drought in recorded history is shifting the sources of energy for electricity with adverse economic and environmental consequences. The Pacific Institute, an internationally-renowned independent think tank focused on water issues, released a report that reveals diminished river flows have resulted in less hydroelectricity, more expensive electricity, and increased production of greenhouse gas emissions. “This severe drought has many negative consequences. One of them that receives little attention is how the drought has fundamentally changed the way our electricity is produced,” said the report’s author, Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick. “We hope this report prompts a lively debate on how to factor in a changing climate when we plan for electricity generation,” he added. Under normal conditions, electricity for the state’s millions of users is produced from a blend of many sources, with natural gas and hydropower being the top two. Since the drought has reduced the state’s river flows that power hundreds of hydropower stations, natural gas has become a more prominent player in the mix. This is an expensive change. According to the Institute’s report, between October 2011 and October 2014, California’s ratepayers spent $1.4 billion more for electricity than in average years because of the drought-induced shift from hydropower to natural gas. In an average year, hydropower provides 18 percent of the electricity needed for agriculture, industry, and our homes. Comparatively, in this three-year drought period, hydropower comprised less than 12 percent of total California electricity generation. A longer view reveals an even more startling economic impact: factoring in the dry years from 2007-2009, the total additional energy cost to the state’s electricity users during the six years of recent drought was $2.4 billion. This further reliance on natural gas for the state’s electricity production also has environmental costs. Hydropower produces few or no air contaminants, whereas burning natural gas emits many pollutants, including climate-changing greenhouse gases. During the 2011- 2014 drought period, burning more natural gas to compensate for limited hydropower led to an eight-percent increase in emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from California power plants. If the current drought persists, water flowing to drive hydroelectric turbines will continue to shrink and expensive and polluting natural gas will become even more of a factor in the electricity production game.

Impacts of California’s Ongoing Drought: Hydroelectricity Generation 2015 Update

Pacific Institute | February 1st, 2016

The Pacific Institute has released a comprehensive assessment of the costs to California of lost hydroelectricity during the four years of drought from October 2011 to th

The Pacific Institute has released a comprehensive assessment of the costs to California of lost hydroelectricity during the four years of drought from October 2011 to the end of September 2015 (the official California “water year” runs from October 1 to September 30). Under normal conditions, electricity for the state’s millions of users is produced from a blend of many sources, with natural gas and hydropower being the top two. Since the drought has reduced the state’s river flows that power hundreds of hydropower stations, natural gas has become a more prominent player in the mix. This is an expensive change. According to the Institute’s new report, the four years of drought led to an increase in electricity costs of more than $2.0 billion. The additional combustion of fossil fuels for electric generation also led to a 10 percent increase in the release of carbon dioxide from California power plants. “The impacts of the California drought – which is the driest and the hottest in 120 years of instrumental records and one of the worst in history – has had widespread  impacts on all water users, including farmers, industries, cities, and natural ecosystems,” said the report’s author, Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick. “And in fact, all California ratepayers are affected by the drought as they pay for electricity that is both dirtier and more expensive than in non-drought years.” In addition, the report notes that the ability to expand California’s hydroelectric capacity is limited, as there are few undammed rivers, little unallocated water, and growing environmental, economic, and political constraints to adding new hydropower capacity.

Impacts of the California Drought from 2007 to 2009: Surprising Outcomes for California’s Agriculture, Energy, and Environment

Pacific Institute | June 16th, 2011

California’s three-year drought, which ended with this season’s cool and wet weather, had complicated and serious impacts that have been poorly understood and reporte

California’s three-year drought, which ended with this season’s cool and wet weather, had complicated and serious impacts that have been poorly understood and reported. Some of the impacts were expected; others were surprising. The Pacific Institute has just completed a nine-month assessment of new data from California’s agricultural, energy, and environmental sectors to evaluate actual consequences of the drought for the state. Analysis of state and federal data released over the past year finds that contrary to much of the media reporting, California’s agricultural community proved flexible and resilient, generating agri­cultural revenues in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that were the highest on record. And agriculture-related occupations remained a stable portion of total jobs available in areas directly impacted by water supply restrictions. Less frequently reported were the substantial impacts on energy production and aquatic ecosystems during the drought, which were economically and environmentally significant. “More severe drought is inevitable, and the U.S. – and California in particular – has not reformed drought monitoring, evaluation, planning, and response strategies the way other countries and regions have,” said Juliet Christian-Smith, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute and lead author of the report. “To become more resilient to future droughts, it will be critical to shift from crisis-driven responses to long-term mitigation strategies.” The Pacific Institute analysis, Impacts of the California Drought from 2007-2009, focused on three drought-sensitive sectors: agricultural production, energy production, and ecosystem health.  

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

United States Congress | August 6th, 2022

Click "get document" for the entire bill. Scroll below to see its drought relief amendment.

Click "get document" for the entire bill. Scroll below to see its drought relief amendment.

Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California: Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Pacific Institute | May 1st, 2013

Interest in seawater desalination in California is high, with 17 plants proposed along the California coast and two in Mexico. But removing the salt from seawater is an e

Interest in seawater desalination in California is high, with 17 plants proposed along the California coast and two in Mexico. But removing the salt from seawater is an energy-intensive process that consumes more energy per gallon than most other water supply and treatment options. A new report from the Pacific Institute series Key Issues for Seawater Desalination in California describes the energy requirements and associated greenhouse gas emissions for desalinated water and evaluates the impact of short- and long-term energy price variability on the cost of desalinated water. Energy requirements are key factors that will impact the extent and success of desalination in California. Key Issues for Seawater Desalination in California: Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions shows energy requirements for seawater desalination average about 15,000 kWh per million gallons of water produced. By comparison, the least energy-intensive options of local sources of groundwater and surface water require 0 – 3,400 kWh per million gallons; wastewater reuse, depending on treatment levels, may require from 1,000 – 8,300 kWh per million gallons; and energy requirements for importing water through the State Water Project to Southern California range from 7,900 – 14,000 kWh per million gallons. “Beyond the electricity required for the desalination facility itself, producing any new source of water, including through desalination, increases the amount of energy required to deliver and use the water produced as well as collect, treat, and dispose of the wastewater generated,” said Heather Cooley, co-director of the Pacific Institute Water Program and report author. Conservation and efficiency, by contrast, can help meet the anticipated needs associated with growth while maintaining or even reducing total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.” Desalination is a reliable source of water, which can be especially valuable during a drought. However, building a desalination plant may reduce a water utility’s exposure to water reliability risks at the added expense of an increase in exposure to energy price risk. Energy is the largest single variable cost for a desalination plant, varying from one-third to more than one-half the cost of produced water. Because of its high energy use, desalination creates or increases the water supplier’s exposure to energy price variability.