Climatic Change

, Volume 109, Supplement 1, pp 151–169 | Cite as

Climate change impacts on two high-elevation hydropower systems in California



This paper describes research to estimate the effects of climate change on two high-elevation hydropower systems in California: the Upper American River Project, operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and the Big Creek system, operated by Southern California Edison. The study builds on a previous model of the Upper American River Project, which is here modified and extended for use to simulate two hydropower systems under various conditions. Future operations of the two high-elevation systems are simulated using climate change scenarios provided for the Second California Assessment. These scenarios suggest reduced precipitation and reduced runoff for both systems, and a shift toward runoff earlier in the year. The change in the hydrograph is somewhat greater for the Upper American River Project system, because its basins lie at a lower elevation. Reduced runoff directly reduces energy generation and revenues from both systems. Because the Upper American River Project system is projected to have greater spills with warmer climate conditions, it also has greater reduction in energy generation and revenues. Both systems continue to meet peak historical power demands in summer under most climate projections. However, if the number of heat waves increases in the late summer (September), reservoir operating strategies may need to be modified.


  1. Aspen Environmental, M-Cubed (2005) Potential changes in hydropower production from global climate change in California and the western United States. Prepared in support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding. California Energy Commission, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  2. Cayan D, Tyree M, Dettinger M, Hidalgo M, Das T, Maurer E, Bromirski P, Graham N, Flick R (2009) Climate change scenarios and sea level rise estimates for the California 2009 climate change scenarios Assessment. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CEC-500-2009-014-FGoogle Scholar
  3. Hayhoe K, Cayan DR, Field C, Frumhoff P, Maurer E, Miller N, Moser S, Schneider S, Cahill K, Cleland E, Dale L, Drapek R, Hanemann WM, Kalkstein L, Lenihan J, Lunch C, Neilson R, Sheridan S, Verville J (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101(34):12422–12427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hooper ER, Georgakakos AP, Lettenmaier DP (1991) Optimal stochastic operation of Salt River Project Arizona. ASCE J Water Resour Plann Manag 117(5):566–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Madani K, Lund JR (2009) Modeling California’s high-elevation hydropower systems in energy units. Water Resour Res 45:W09413. doi:10.1029/2008WR007206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Madani K, Lund JR (2010) Estimated impacts of climate warming on California’s high/elevation hydropower. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9750-8
  7. Madani K, Lund JR, Jenkins MW (2007) Sierra’s high elevation hydropower and climate change. Project report for the California Hydropower Reform Coalition. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis. AugustGoogle Scholar
  8. Madani K, Vicuña S, Lund J, Dracup J, Dale L (2008) Different approaches to study the adaptability of high-elevation hydropower systems to climate change: the case of SMUD’s Upper American River Project. World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2008. May 12–16, 2008, Honolulu, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  9. Maurer EP, Hidalgo HG (2008) Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale climate data: an intercomparison of two statistical downscaling methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 12:551–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Medellín J, Connell CR, Madani K, Lund J, Howitt, RE (2008) Water management adaptation with climate change. UC Davis.Google Scholar
  11. Miller NL, Hayhoe K, Jin J, Auffhammer M (2008) Climate, extreme heat, and electricity demand in California. J Appl Meteorol Clim 47(6):1834–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nijssen B, Lettenmaier DP, Liang X, Wetzel SW, Wood E (1997) Streamflow simulation for continental-scale basins. Water Resour Res 33(4):711–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Olivares MA (2008) Optimal hydropower reservoir operation with environmental requirements. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California – Davis, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) (2001) The Upper American River Project initial information package (IIP). FERC Project No. 2101, SMUD, Sacramento, California. Available at: Accessed 22 January 2010
  15. Tanaka ST, Zhu T, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Jenkins MW, Pulido MA, Tauber M, Ritzema RS, Ferreira IC (2006) Climate warming and water management adaptation for California. Climatic Change 76(3–4):361–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vicuna S, Dracup JA, Lund JR, Dale LL, Maurer EP (2010) Basin scale water systems operations under climate change hydrologic conditions: methodology and case studies. Water Resour Res 46:W04505. doi:10.1029/2009WR007838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vicuña S, Maurer EP, Joyce B, Dracup JA, Purkey D (2007) The sensitivity of California water resources to climate change scenarios. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43(2):482–498. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vicuña S, Leonardson R, Dale L, Hanemann M, Dracup J (2008) Climate change impacts on high elevation hydropower generation in California’s Sierra Nevada: a case study in the Upper American River. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-93

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Vicuña
    • 1
  • John A. Dracup
    • 2
  • Larry Dale
    • 3
  1. 1.Centro Interdisciplinario de Cambio GlobalPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Energy and Technologies DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations