Drought Is Complicating California’s Plans for a Carbon-Free Future

It’s hard to generate clean hydropower with so little water.

Lake Oroville. October 30, 2014.Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This story was originally published by Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

I grew up in typically dry, inland southern California, so droughts are not entirely unexpected for me, my neighbors, or my colleagues. Since I was born in 1987, the state has endured four long droughts: the 1987–1992 drought, the 2007–2009 drought that contributed to one of the state’s worst wildfire seasons, the 2011–2017 drought that is California’s longest drought on record, and the current drought that started in 2020 and continues to worsen. I grew up hearing warnings about water shortages and high temperatures.

While experiencing a few years of drought is not entirely new to residents of the arid Southwest, what is new is the intensity and duration of current droughts, because of climate change caused by our dependence on fossil fuels to meet our energy needs.

There is also evidence that what is considered a typical climate in California is unusually wet compared with long-term historical trends for the region. In the future, climate change is expected to cause droughts to be longer and more intense in terms of precipitation shortage. That will affect California’s water supply and other systems that depend on it, namely hydroelectric generation resources.

California is already experiencing the effects of climate change-induced droughts on hydroelectric resources. Just last week, the Edward Hyatt Power Plant at Lake Oroville had to cease hydroelectric generation for the first time since its construction in 1967.

Water levels at Lake Powell, a reservoir on the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead that supplies Hoover Dam and its export of electricity to California, also fell to their lowest level since the 1930s. During the 2011–2017 California drought, utilities compensated for the loss of hydroelectric generation by increasing their reliance on natural gas power plants to prevent blackouts, causing a 33 percent increase in annual carbon dioxide emissions from 2012 to 2014.

 
Drought impacts on hydropower affect the electricity system in both the near and long terms. In the near term, a continued lack of water availability through this summer and potentially through subsequent years will again mean increased reliance on natural gas. While California’s generation mix has started to incorporate more renewables and energy storage, these resources are not yet sizeable enough to compensate for a significant reduction in hydroelectricity generation, which typically makes up 15 to 20 percent of the state’s electricity supply in non-drought years.

As we are seeing with Lake Powell, hydropower generation does not simply decrease proportionally to decreased water availability: If water reservoir levels drop below the height of the intake levels for hydroelectric turbines, the facility must cease electricity production entirely. When reduced water availability is combined with record-breaking temperatures and wildfires, such as the Bootleg Fire in Oregon that threatened transmission lines carrying power to California, the loss of hydropower can result in high electricity prices and potential rolling blackouts.

The ability of hydroelectric resources to provide the short-term benefits of avoiding additional natural gas use (and its associated emissions), as well as the long-term benefits of enabling the development of reliable and affordable zero-carbon electricity systems, depends on the availability of water both in total and during times when the electric grid most needs it.

Climate change is expected to alter the patterns of water availability for hydropower by intensifying and lengthening storms during wet periods and droughts during dry periods. Even if the total amount of water provided to reservoirs does not change, a change in the timing of precipitation affects the ability of hydroelectric power plants to act as backup systems for variable renewable energy resources.

For example, in California, precipitation has historically occurred in the fall and winter months as snow, building a large snowpack in the state’s high-elevation mountains. During the spring, the snowpack melts, sending water to reservoirs for storage. This ensures that water is available to meet high summer demands for both water and electricity. In a warming climate, however, precipitation in the fall and winter is expected to intensify and fall as rain instead of snow. Instead of rebuilding mountain snowpack, this rain will increase reservoir inflows. A sudden increase in runoff can cause reservoirs to fill to capacity, forcing operators to release any additional inflow to avoid structural failure, which means that not all the precipitation will be stored.

During the summer, drought events are expected to last longer than past events, and the water stored in California’s reservoirs may not be sufficient to meet the summer’s highest electric demands. If California plans its zero-carbon electricity system based on historical hydroelectricity availability, but gets less availability because of climate change, the state may either not meet its zero-carbon electricity goals or run the risk of blackouts.

Moving forward, there are two classes of actions that California can take to reduce the impacts of climate change on hydroelectric resources. The first is to account for the effects of climate change on water availability in the operational practices of hydroelectric reservoirs, by developing updated water release schedules that expect future, more variable inflows rather than historical inflow patterns. The specifics of what such changes will look like will vary from reservoir to reservoir, since each reservoir is subject to different inflow patterns and operated under different constraints and priorities outside of hydroelectric generation.

The second set of actions is to account for the effects of climate change on the availability of hydroelectric generation as part of the resource mix that will supply the future, zero-carbon electric grid. Including these impacts in the state’s capacity expansion modeling, which informs planning decisions, will give planners a better understanding of the extent to which other resources (such as geothermal or energy storage, for example) will need to be further expanded to compensate for changes in hydroelectric resource availability in a warmer climate.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate