Hydropower in California: Is it Worth It?
When considering the renewable generation future of California, the discussion tends to focus on wind and solar power. While these two types of power have gained lots of attention over the last few years, there is another form of energy that has a significant presence in California: hydroelectric power. In 2019, hydroelectric power made up about 19% of California’s generation portfolio. Small-scale hydropower, which is the only hydropower that counts towards the state’s ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standards, made up roughly 4% of the state’s energy budget in 2018. Environmentalists and policymakers have raised concerns about the environmental damages associated with hydropower and the impact of California’s droughts on its reliability. As California seeks to move towards more renewable energy and the goal of 100% renewable energy by 2045, the potential role of hydropower in the future must be carefully considered.
Hydropower converts mechanical energy to electrical energy at an efficiency rate of 85%, higher than any other form of energy generation. While dams can have a very high up-front cost, they are more cost-effective in the long run and provide a more consistent supply of energy compared to wind or solar power. Californian hydropower is inexpensive compared to other forms of renewable energy and is well-suited for responding to fluctuating demand across the state. While most of the energy generated comes from large-scale dams, run-of-river, and stored water generation also play a part in the diverse Californian hydropower landscape, providing less intrusive energy generation.
Hydropower poses unique challenges for California due to environmental damages and the ongoing problem of the drought. Ecosystems surrounding hydroelectric dams suffer from decreased species biodiversity, disruption of water flow, and temperature and nutrient fluctuations. Dams also often disrupt fisheries and inundate nearby wetlands. Frequent droughts in California have led to an inconsistent water supply for hydropower plants, rendering them relatively ineffective. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of droughts, leaving many hydropower plants out of operation for much of the year. The variability of hydropower production has only increased in the last ten years. The decreased use of hydropower in drought years is made up for by increased use of fossil fuels and higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a landmark federal bill for renewable energy, which provided incentives to increase hydropower production at established hydropower plants and dams across the country. The bill also required all plants and dams included in the incentive program to undergo a study to determine the environmental impact of their operations. While this bill does a reasonable job of balancing encouraging hydropower production while addressing environmental concerns, it does not go very far enough in either direction. It provides no incentive for new hydroelectric power plants and it does not apply any kind of restrictions or regulations to promote ecosystem health.
In California, Senate Bill 350 established a target of 50% renewable energy for the state by 2030 and specified in which cases hydropower was considered under the renewables umbrella. It qualified only small hydropower (defined as producing 30 megawatts or less of power) as a source of renewable energy. It also specifies that new plants will not be considered renewable if they “will cause an adverse impact on instream beneficial uses or cause a change in the volume or timing of streamflow.” However, towns that rely on large hydropower are not required to substitute any other form of renewable energy in order to meet the state quota. The bill effectively incentivizes only small-scale hydropower while placing large-scale hydropower somewhere between non-renewable and renewable technology. This bill provides a more nuanced view by recognizing the different levels of impacts of different sizes of hydropower systems but still does not offer actionable regulations to keep hydropower from adversely impacting streams.
SB-100, which was passed in 2018, calls for the state to be run on 100% renewable energy by 2045 and restates many of the same views on hydropower as SB-350. The bill also qualifies only small hydropower as a truly renewable resource. However, it offers the same exception for towns that rely on large hydropower, allowing them to use large hydropower to ‘count’ towards their renewable goal, as long as some of their energy also comes from other renewable resources. Once again, the state maintains an ambivalent attitude towards hydropower and disincentives the construction of new hydropower systems without implementing strict regulations to protect ecosystems affected by existing hydropower facilities.
Due to the variety of issues with hydropower and its regulation, no single piece of legislation can address everything that needs to be addressed when it comes to this pressing issue. The consensus of recent policy is that large-scale hydropower is no longer feasible for California, but there are varying opinions on smaller-scale projects. If the state decides to go forward with small hydropower projects, it will need stricter regulations, similar to those for large dams. If hydropower is to succeed in the state, renewable backup systems must be implemented for when droughts cause water levels to fall below a usable amount. Lawmakers must evaluate whether the cost of such a backup plan is high enough that it would be more cost-effective to focus on wind, solar, and other renewables in place of hydropower.
Hydropower is a complicated form of energy that presents both a unique challenge and a unique opportunity for California, and new legislation must be enacted to reap the benefits of this technology without incurring the costs. However, legislation is unlikely to be able to garner widespread support because the environmental damages of hydropower are widely known, and other forms of renewable energy have fewer visible costs. More research is needed to quantify the effects and benefits of hydropower in California to inform future decisions. Without new policy prescriptions that balance encouraging small-scale hydropower and protecting nearby ecosystems, hydropower is likely to fall out of widespread use, and other forms of renewable energy will rise in its place.
Works Cited:
California State Senate. Clean Energy and Policy Reduction Act of 2015. SB-350.
California State Senate. California Standard Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases (2017). SB-100.
Dogan, Mustafa. “Integrated Water Operations in California: Hydropower, Overdraft, and
Climate Change,” University of California, Davis, 2015.
Gleick, Peter. “Impacts of California’s Ongoing Drought: Hydroelectricity Generation.” Pacific Institute, 2015.
Joyce, Stephanie. “Is It Worth a Dam?” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 105, №10 (Oct. 1997), pp. 1050–1055
Koch, Frans H. “HYDROPOWER — INTERNALISED COSTS AND EXTERNALISED BENEFITS.” IEA — Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes, Ottawa, 2001, pp. 131–139.
Rehn, Andrew. “BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES AS INDICATORS OF BIOLOGICALCONDITION BELOW HYDROPOWER DAMS ON WEST SLOPE SIERRA NEVADA STREAMS, CALIFORNIA, USA” River. Res. Applic, 2008.
United States Cong. Senate. Energy Policy Act of 2005. 109th Congress. H.R.6.
