Transcript hamlet_eco_sys_apr_2002

Long-Term Solutions to the Salmon vs.
Hydro Problem in the Columbia River
Basin
JISAO Climate Impacts Group and the
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Washington
December, 2000
Alan F. Hamlet
Jeffrey Payne
Dennis P. Lettenmaier
Richard Palmer
Hydrological Characteristics of the Columbia Basin
Avg Naturalized Flow
600000
Flow (cfs)
500000
400000
300000
200000
Flows
Originating in
Canada
The Dalles
Elevation (m)
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
Dec
Oct
0
Nov
100000
Columbia River Basin
and System of Dams and Reservoirs Included in ColSim Model
Storage Reservoirs
Run-of-River Dams
A Brief Overview of the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem
Effects of Channel Development on Streamflow
•Small X-sec area
•High flow velocity
•Short travel time
•Cold temperature
Natural River Channel
•Large X-sec area
•Low flow velocity
•Long travel time
•Warmer temperature
Reservoir Pool
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
Effects of Natural Variability for Status Quo
100
95
Reliability (%)
90
All Years
Warm PDO/El Niño
Warm PDO/Neutral
Warm PDO/La Niña
Cool PDO/El Niño
Cool PDO/Neutral
Cool PDO/La Niña
85
80
75
70
Firm Energy
Non-Firm
Energy
McNary Flow
Snake Irrigation LakeRoosevelt
Recreation
System Objective
Effects of Natural Variability for Fish Flow Alternative
100
95
Reliability (%)
90
All Years
Warm PDO/El Niño
Warm PDO/Neutral
Warm PDO/La Niña
Cool PDO/El Niño
Cool PDO/Neutral
Cool PDO/La Niña
85
80
75
70
Firm Energy
Non-Firm Energy
McNary Flow
Snake Irrigation
System Objective
LakeRoosevelt
Recreation
Potential Effects of Climate Change
Potential Long-Term Effects of Climate Change
April 1 Snow Extent
Estimated Range of
Natural Flow
With 2040’s Warming
Current
20th Century
Natural Flows
~2045
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.
Hydro storage
40000
System Storage (kAF)
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
Fish flow storage
5000
0
1
•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.
Exploring Some Alternatives to the Status Quo
Typical Energy Load Shape Prior to Wholesale Deregulation
and Proposed Changes to Benefit Fish
12000
More Here
10000
Average MW
8000
Non-Firm
Firm
6000
Total
4000
Less Here
2000
Align Spot Sales with Fish Flows
0
oct
nov
dec
jan
feb
mar
apr
Month
may
jun
jul
aug
sep
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
Firm energy assumed to be marketed at = $25.0 per MW-hr
Spot Market Prices and Cost of Buyback:
Month Average Energy Price ($ per MW-hr)
Aug
39.7
Sep
32.5
Oct
26.2
Nov
32.6
Dec
33.2
Jan
28.3
Feb
27.2
Mar
25.8
Apr
18.3
May
16.8
Jun
21.0
July
29.0
Simulated Performance of Alternatives for
Historic Flows
(100% Active Storage Available for Fish Flows)
Change in Firm + Spot Market Revenues Relative to Status Quo
Change in Energy Revenue
(million $/yr)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1.0 * Firm
0.9 * Firm
0.8 * Firm
0.7 * Firm
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
0.6 * Firm
Additional Cost Assuming PNW Energy Shortfalls Must be
Bought Back at Spot Market Prices
Cost of Replacement Energy
(million $/yr)
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
0.6
Estimated Replacement Capacity
(MW)
Estimate of Maximum Capacity Requirement for Replacement
Energy Source (Highest Hydro Capacity Shortfall)
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1.0 * Firm
0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
Reliability of Hydro and McNary Fish Flows
102.00
Reliability of Objective (%)
100.00
98.00
96.00
94.00
92.00
90.00
Firm Reliability
88.00
Mcnary Reliability
86.00
84.00
1.0 * Firm
0.9 * Firm
0.8 * Firm
0.7 * Firm
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
0.6 * Firm
Simulated Performance Under Climate Change
Average Monthly Deficit for McNary Instream
Target (cfs)
Reductions in Supportable Energy Production Under
Climate Change (~2.5 C warming)
120,000.00
Control
100,000.00
Status Quo
3.30
Increasing storage allocation
for fish flows
4.30
80,000.00
60,000.00
6.00
8.30
33.30
40,000.00
20,000.00
April
May
June
July
August
Change in Average Annual Hydropower Revenue
-$4,000,000.00
Increasing storage allocation
for fish flows
200,000
-$14,000,000.00
-$24,000,000.00
160,000
-$34,000,000.00
120,000
-$44,000,000.00
80,000
-$54,000,000.00
40,000
-$64,000,000.00
-$74,000,000.00
Status Quo
3.3
4.3
6
8.3
33.3
Storage allocation for fish flows (MAF)
Average Seasonal Deficit at McNary (volume,
cfs*month)
240,000
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.
Supportable Firm Energy
(% of Control Climate Firm Energy)
Reductions in Firm Energy Production Under
Climate Change (~2.5 C warming)
Increasing storage allocation
for fish flows
PCM Control
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
PCM [2070-98]
Status Quo
Instream
Allocation
(2.30)
3.30
4.32
6.00
8.34
Allocation for Instream Targets (MAF)
Total Upper
Columbia
Storage
(33.30)