Alan F. HamletJeffrey Payne

Dennis P. LettenmaierRichard Palmer

JISAO Climate Impacts Group and the Department of Civil Engineering

University of WashingtonDecember, 2000

Long-Term Solutions to the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem in the Columbia River

Basin

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Oct

No

v

De

c

Jan

Fe

b

Ma

r

Ap

r

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Flo

w (

cfs

)

Hydrological Characteristics of the Columbia Basin

Elevation (m)

Avg Naturalized Flow

The Dalles

Flows Originating in Canada

Columbia River Basinand System of Dams and Reservoirs Included in ColSim Model

Storage Reservoirs

Run-of-River Dams

A Brief Overview of the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem

Natural River Channel Reservoir Pool

•Small X-sec area•High flow velocity•Short travel time•Cold temperature

•Large X-sec area•Low flow velocity•Long travel time•Warmer temperature

Effects of Channel Development on Streamflow

Trends in Regulated Peak Flow at The Dalles

Completion of Major Dams(Columbia River Treaty 1964)

2001

Natural Variability Compared to Effects of Regulation

1990 Level Regulated Flow

Effects of Climate Variability and Operating System Design

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Firm Energy Non-FirmEnergy

McNary Flow Snake Irrigation LakeRooseveltRecreation

System Objective

Re

lia

bil

ity

(%)

All Years Warm PDO/El Niño Warm PDO/Neutral Warm PDO/La Niña Cool PDO/El Niño Cool PDO/Neutral Cool PDO/La Niña

Effects of Natural Variability for Status Quo

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Firm Energy Non-Firm Energy McNary Flow Snake Irrigation LakeRooseveltRecreation

System Objective

Rel

iab

ilit

y (%

) All Years

Warm PDO/El Niño

Warm PDO/Neutral

Warm PDO/La Niña

Cool PDO/El Niño

Cool PDO/Neutral

Cool PDO/La Niña

Effects of Natural Variability for Fish Flow Alternative

Potential Effects of Climate Change

Potential Long-Term Effects of Climate Change

Current

~2045

April 1 Snow Extent

20th CenturyNatural Flows

Estimated Range of Natural FlowWith 2040’s Warming

Why Doesn’t the Status Quo Provide a Very Good Balance Between Fish Flows

and Hydro?

•The flow needed to provide sufficient velocity is frequently higher than natural flow, particularly in late summer (I.e. use of storage is required).

•Currently very little storage is allocated to fish in comparison with hydropower.

•In a conflict between hydro and fish, the operating system is designed to protect hydro (fish allocation is at the top of pool and same storage is available to hydro system)

•The Columbia River Treaty does not provide explicitly for summer flow in the U.S. (transboundary issues). Compare with guaranteed winter releases associated with flood control.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1

Sys

tem

Sto

rag

e (

kAF

) Hydro storage

Fish flow storage

Exploring Some Alternatives to the Status Quo

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep

Month

Ave

rag

e M

W Non-Firm

Firm

Total

Typical Energy Load Shape Prior to Wholesale Deregulationand Proposed Changes to Benefit Fish

Less Here

More Here

Align Spot Sales with Fish Flows

Design of Experimental Reservoir Operating Rule

•Continue to provide a portion of current “firm” energy resources to help meet local energy demand (a range of values), but shift significant energy production to summer by allocating more storage to fish flows.

•Permit non-firm energy production only when conjunctive with summer fish flow needs or other local system objectives.

•Fish and hydro have same storage allocation and share the same resources.

Energy Marketing Assumptions

Month Average Energy Price ($ per MW-hr)Aug 39.7Sep 32.5Oct 26.2Nov 32.6Dec 33.2Jan 28.3Feb 27.2Mar 25.8Apr 18.3May 16.8Jun 21.0July 29.0

Firm energy assumed to be marketed at = $25.0 per MW-hr

Spot Market Prices and Cost of Buyback:

Simulated Performance of Alternatives for Historic Flows

(100% Active Storage Available for Fish Flows)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm

Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target

Ch

ang

e in

En

erg

y R

ev

en

ue

(m

illio

n $

/yr)

Change in Firm + Spot Market Revenues Relative to Status Quo

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target

Co

st o

f R

epla

cem

ent

En

erg

y (m

illio

n $

/yr)

Additional Cost Assuming PNW Energy Shortfalls Must be Bought Back at Spot Market Prices

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm

Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target

Est

imat

ed R

epla

cem

ent

Cap

acit

y

(MW

)

Estimate of Maximum Capacity Requirement for Replacement Energy Source (Highest Hydro Capacity Shortfall)

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

92.00

94.00

96.00

98.00

100.00

102.00

1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm

Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target

Re

lia

bil

ity

of

Ob

jec

tiv

e (

%)

Firm Reliability

Mcnary Reliability

Reliability of Hydro and McNary Fish Flows

Simulated Performance Under Climate Change

-

20,000.00

40,000.00

60,000.00

80,000.00

100,000.00

120,000.00

April May June July August

Av

era

ge

Mo

nth

ly D

efi

cit

fo

r M

cN

ary

Ins

tre

am

T

arg

et

(cfs

)

Control

Status Quo

3.30

4.30

6.00

8.30

33.30

Increasing storage allocationfor fish flows

Reductions in Supportable Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming)

-$74,000,000.00

-$64,000,000.00

-$54,000,000.00

-$44,000,000.00

-$34,000,000.00

-$24,000,000.00

-$14,000,000.00

-$4,000,000.00

Status Quo 3.3 4.3 6 8.3 33.3

Ch

ang

e in

Av

erag

e A

nn

ual

Hyd

rop

ow

er R

even

ue

-

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

240,000

Av

era

ge

Se

as

on

al

De

fic

it a

t M

cN

ary

(v

olu

me

, c

fs*m

on

th)

Increasing storage allocationfor fish flows

Storage allocation for fish flows (MAF)

Conclusions

•Allocating more storage for fish flows and aligning energy production in summer with fish flow targets is shown to strongly increase the reliability of McNary fish flows to almost 100% for the observed climate.

•Energy revenues would be essentially unaltered (modest increases) despite reductions in “firm” energy production.

•Significant reductions in energy capacity are likely to accompany reallocation of hydro storage to fish flows (Need to assess current and future sources of alternate capacity).

•Replacement capacity requirements are lowered when firm energy targets are decreased.

•Increasing storage allocation for fish over time may help reduce vulnerability of fish to reductions in summer flow that may accompany climate change.

50%55%

60%65%70%75%

80%85%90%

95%100%

Status QuoInstreamAllocation

(2.30)

3.30 4.32 6.00 8.34 Total UpperColumbiaStorage(33.30)

Allocation for Instream Targets (MAF)

Su

pp

ort

able

Fir

m E

ner

gy

(% o

f C

on

tro

l C

lim

ate

Fir

m E

ner

gy)

PCM Control

PCM [2070-98]

Reductions in Firm Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming)

Increasing storage allocationfor fish flows