DOCSLIB.ORG

California's Water-Energy Relationship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California's Water-Energy Relationship CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION California's Water – Energy Relationship Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated EPORT Energy Policy Report Proceeding (04-IEPR-01E) R TAFF S INAL F NOVEMBER 2005 CEC-700-2005-011-SF Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor 1 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Primary Author Gary Klein California Energy Commission Martha Krebs Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Division Valerie Hall Deputy Director Energy Efficiency & Demand Analysis Division Terry O’Brien Deputy Director Systems Assessment & Facilities Siting Division B. B. Blevins Executive Director DISCLAIMER This paper was prepared as the result of work by one or more members of the staff of the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this paper; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This paper has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this paper. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California’s Water-Energy Relationship report is the product of contributions by many California Energy Commission staff and consultants, including Ricardo Amon, Shahid Chaudhry, Thomas S. Crooks, Marilyn Davin, Joe O’Hagan, Pramod Kulkarni, Kae Lewis, Laurie Park, Paul Roggensack, Monica Rudman, Matt Trask, Lorraine White and Zhiqin Zhang. Staff would also like to thank the members of the Water-Energy Working Group who so graciously gave of their time and expertise to inform this report. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. I TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 1 - WHAT IS THE WATER-ENERGY RELATIONSHIP?........................................................6 THE WATER USE CYCLE ....................................................................................................................................6 WATER-RELATED ENERGY USE .........................................................................................................................7 THE ENERGY INTENSITY OF THE WATER USE CYCLE.........................................................................................9 ENERGY INTENSITY IN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.....................................................................11 WATER END USE ENERGY................................................................................................................................12 Agriculture..................................................................................................................................................12 Residential, Commercial and Industrial .....................................................................................................15 HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION, ENERGY RECOVERY, AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES..........................................16 Hydropower ................................................................................................................................................16 Energy Recovery from the Water Use Cycle...............................................................................................17 In-Conduit Hydropower.......................................................................................................................................... 17 Biogas ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Other Renewable Energy Resources...........................................................................................................17 A Loading Order for Water Resources .......................................................................................................18 CHAPTER 2 – WATER SUPPLY AND CONVEYANCE.............................................................................21 PRIMARY SOURCES OF CALIFORNIA WATER ....................................................................................................21 The Energy Intensity of Water Supplies......................................................................................................22 Surface Water .............................................................................................................................................23 Groundwater Sources .................................................................................................................................26 Ocean and Brackish Water .........................................................................................................................27 Recycled Water ...........................................................................................................................................28 The Energy Intensity of the Water Resource Portfolio................................................................................30 CHAPTER 3 – WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ..........................31 WATER TREATMENT ........................................................................................................................................33 Desalination................................................................................................................................................36 WATER DISTRIBUTION .....................................................................................................................................37 WASTEWATER TREATMENT..............................................................................................................................38 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................41 CHAPTER 4 – WATER RELATED END-USE EFFICIENCY ....................................................................42 THE ENERGY IMPACT OF WATER USE EFFICIENCY...........................................................................................42 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................44 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION MEASURES ....................................................................................44 ADOPTION OF TIME OF USE (TOU) AGRICULTURAL ELECTRIC RATES.............................................................45 OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING AGRICULTURAL WATER ENERGY USE IN CALIFORNIA ......................................46 URBAN WATER USE EFFICIENCY......................................................................................................................48 TOU WATER TARIFFS AND METERS ................................................................................................................50 Water Storage for Peak Electric Load Shifting...........................................................................................51 Investing in Water and Energy Efficiency...................................................................................................51 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................52 ii CHAPTER 5 – RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION POTENTIAL ...................................................53 DISTRIBUTED GENERATION..............................................................................................................................54 In-Conduit Hydropower..............................................................................................................................54 Biogas .........................................................................................................................................................55 OTHER DISTRIBUTED GENERATION OPTIONS ...................................................................................................56 Utility Scale Generation .............................................................................................................................57 Large-Scale Hydropower............................................................................................................................57 Pumped Storage..........................................................................................................................................58 Retrofit ........................................................................................................................................................60 Other Renewable Resources .......................................................................................................................61
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Renewable Tracking Progress Appendix
    California Energy Commission – Tracking Progress Renewable Energy Advancing the use and availability of renewable energy is critical to achieving California’s ambitious climate goals. With this in mind, California has pursued a suite of policies and programs aimed at advancing renewable energy and ensuring all Californians, including low- income and disadvantaged communities, benefit from this transition. This report presents the state’s progress in meeting its renewable energy goals and provides an updated analysis through 2018 of renewable energy generation, installed renewable capacity, and a discussion of the trends, opportunities, and challenges associated with the renewable energy transition. More detailed figures and tables are included in the appendix.1 Renewable Energy Serving California Consumers Annual Renewable Percentage: Renewables Portfolio Standard Progress An increasing percentage of energy consumed by Californians comes from renewable sources. A key mandate advancing the use of renewable energy has been the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires California load-serving entities2 (LSEs) to increase their procurement of eligible renewable energy resources (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric) to 33 percent of retail sales by 2020 and 60 percent of retail sales by 2030. Based on reported electric generation from RPS-eligible sources divided by forecasted electricity retail sales for 2019, the California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that 36 percent of California’s 2019 retail electricity sales was served by RPS-eligible renewable resources as shown in Figure 1. Although this number is not a final RPS determination, it is an important indicator of progress in achieving California’s RPS goals. Figure 1: Estimated Current Renewables Portfolio Standard Progress Source: CEC staff analysis, December 2019 The annual renewable percentage estimated by the CEC has continued to increase in recent years, often ahead of the timelines envisioned by prior legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • KEY to ENDSHEET MAP (Continued)
    KEY TO ENDSHEET MAP (continued) RESERVOIRS AND LAKES (AUTHORIZED) 181.Butler Valley Res. 185. Dixie Refuge Res. 189. County Line Res. 182.Knights Valley Res. 186. Abbey Bridge Res. 190. Buchanan Res. 183.Lakeport Res. 187. Marysville Res. 191. Hidden Res. 184.Indian Valley Res. 188. Sugar Pine Res. 192. ButtesRes. RESERVOIRS AND LAKES 51BLE FUTURE) 193.Helena Res. 207. Sites-Funks Res. 221. Owen Mountain Res. 194.Schneiders Bar Res. 208. Ranchería Res. 222. Yokohl Res. 195.Eltapom Res. 209. Newville-Paskenta Res. 223. Hungry Hollow Res. 196. New Rugh Res. 210. Tehama Res. 224. Kellogg Res. 197.Anderson Ford Res. 211. Dutch Gulch Res. 225. Los Banos Res. 198.Dinsmore Res. 212. Allen Camp Res. 226. Jack Res. 199. English Ridge Res. 213. Millville Res. 227. Santa Rita Res. 200.Dos Rios Res. 214. Tuscan Buttes Res. 228. Sunflower Res. 201.Yellowjacket Res. 215. Aukum Res. 229. Lompoc Res. 202.Cahto Res. 216. Nashville Res. 230. Cold Springs Res. 203.Panther Res. 217. Irish Hill Res. 231. Topatopa Res. 204.Walker Res. 218. Cooperstown Res. 232. Fallbrook Res. 205.Blue Ridge Res. 219. Figarden Res. 233. De Luz Res. 206.Oat Res. 220. Little Dry Creek Res. AQUEDUCTS AND TUNNELS (EXISTING OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION) Clear Creek Tunnel 12. South Bay Aqueduct 23. Los Angeles Aqueduct 1. Whiskeytown-Keswick 13. Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct 24. South Coast Conduit 2.Tunnel 14. Delta Mendota Canal 25. Colorado River Aqueduct 3. Bella Vista Conduit 15. California Aqueduct 26. San Diego Aqueduct 4.Muletown Conduit 16. Pleasant Valley Canal 27. Coachella Canal 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers, Opportunities, and Research Needs Draft Report
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program FINAL PROJECT REPORT TASK 5. Biomass Energy in California’s Future: Barriers, Opportunities, and Research Needs_ Draft Report Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: UC Davis California Geothermal Energy Collaborative DECEMBER 2013 CEC‐500‐01‐016 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Stephen Kaffka, University of California, Davis Robert Williams, University of California, Davis Douglas Wickizer, University of California, Davis UC Davis California Geothermal Energy Collaborative 1715 Tilia St. Davis, CA 95616 www.cgec.ucdavis.edu Contract Number: 500‐01‐016 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Reynaldo Gonzalez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research & Development Division Robert P. Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The California Goethermal Energy Collaborative would like to thank the California Energy Commission and its Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) for sponsoring this important work as well as the Geothermal Energy Association for assisting in tracking down the most up to date data both within the United States and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River Aqueduct
    Fact Sheet: Our Water Lifeline__ The Colorado River Aqueduct. Photo: Aerial photo of CRA Investment in Reliability The Colorado River Aqueduct is considered one of the nation’s Many innovations came from this period in time, including the top civil engineering marvels. It was originally conceived by creation of a medical system for contract workers that would William Mulholland and designed by Metropolitan’s first Chief become the forerunner for the prepaid healthcare plan offered Engineer Frank Weymouth after consideration of more than by Kaiser Permanente. 50 routes. The 242-mile CRA carries water from Lake Havasu to the system’s terminal reservoir at Lake Mathews in Riverside. This reservoir’s location was selected because it is situated at the upper end of Metropolitan’s service area and its elevation of nearly 1,400 feet allows water to flow by gravity to the majority of our service area The CRA was the largest public works project built in Southern California during the Great Depression. Overwhelming voter approval in 1929 for a $220 million bond – equivalent to a $3.75 billion investment today – brought jobs to 35,000 people. Miners, engineers, surveyors, cooks and more came to build Colorado River the aqueduct, living in the harshest of desert conditions and Aqueduct ultimately constructing 150 miles of canals, siphons, conduits and pipelines. They added five pumping plants to lift water over mountains so deliveries could then flow west by gravity. And they blasted 90-plus miles of tunnels, including a waterway under Mount San Jacinto. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA // // JULY 2021 FACT SHEET: THE COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT // // OUR WATER LIFELINE The Vision Despite the city of Los Angeles’ investment in its aqueduct, by the early 1920s, Southern Californians understood the region did not have enough local supplies to meet growing demands.
    [Show full text]
  • San Luis Unit Project History
    San Luis Unit West San Joaquin Division Central Valley Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation Table of Contents The San Luis Unit .............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................4 Project Authorization.....................................................7 Construction History .....................................................9 Post Construction History ................................................19 Settlement of the Project .................................................24 Uses of Project Water ...................................................25 1992 Crop Production Report/Westlands ....................................27 Conclusion............................................................28 Suggested Readings ...........................................................28 Index ......................................................................29 1 The West San Joaquin Division The San Luis Unit Approximately 300 miles, and 30 years, separate Shasta Dam in northern California from the San Luis Dam on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley Project, launched in the 1930s, ascended toward its zenith in the 1960s a few miles outside of the town of Los Banos. There, one of the world's largest dams rose across one of California's smallest creeks. The American mantra of "bigger is better" captured the spirit of the times when the San Luis Unit
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division
    State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY San Luis Field Division San Joaquin Field Division June 2017 State of California California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Division of Engineering CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT SUBSIDENCE STUDY Jeanne M. Kuttel ......................................................................................... Division Chief Joseph W. Royer .......................... Chief, Geotechnical and Engineering Services Branch Tru Van Nguyen ............................... Supervising Engineer, General Engineering Section G. Robert Barry .................. Supervising Engineering Geologist, Project Geology Section by James Lopes ................................................................................ Senior Engineer, W.R. John M. Curless .................................................................. Senior Engineering Geologist Anna Gutierrez .......................................................................................... Engineer, W.R. Ganesh Pandey .................................................................... Supervising Engineer, W.R. assisted by Bradley von Dessonneck ................................................................ Engineering Geologist Steven Friesen ...................................................................... Engineer, Water Resources Dan Mardock .............................................................................. Chief, Geodetic
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporating Renewables Into the Electric Grid: Expanding Opportunities for Smart Markets and Energy Storage
    INCORPORATING RENEWABLES INTO THE ELECTRIC GRID: EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMART MARKETS AND ENERGY STORAGE June 2016 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 I. Technical and Economic Considerations in Renewable Integration .......................................................... 7 Characteristics of a Grid with High Levels of Variable Energy Resources ................................................. 7 Technical Feasibility and Cost of Integration .......................................................................................... 12 II. Evidence on the Cost of Integrating Variable Renewable Generation ................................................... 15 Current and Historical Ancillary Service Costs ........................................................................................ 15 Model Estimates of the Cost of Renewable Integration ......................................................................... 17 Evidence from Ancillary Service Markets................................................................................................ 18 Effect of variable generation on expected day-ahead regulation mileage......................................... 19 Effect of variable generation on actual regulation mileage ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • The Green Economic Recovery: Wind Energy Tax Policy After Financial Crisis and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Oregon Scholars' Bank JEFFRY S. HINMAN∗ The Green Economic Recovery: Wind Energy Tax Policy After Financial Crisis and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 I. The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential of the U.S. Wind Industry................................................................................... 39 A. Environmental Benefits of Wind...................................... 40 B. Economic Benefits of Wind ............................................. 41 1. Jobs and Economic Activity........................................ 41 2. Competitiveness with Traditional Power Plants ......... 43 C. Challenges for the Wind Energy Industry ......................... 44 1. Efficiency, Grid Access, and Intermittency ................ 44 2. Environmental Concerns and Local Opposition ......... 45 II. Federal Support for Renewable Energy Past and Present ....... 46 A. Renewable Energy Tax Policy 1978 to 1992 .................... 47 1. The National Energy Act of 1978 ............................... 48 2. Additional State-Level Tax Incentives in California During the 1980s ....................................... 50 3. The California Wind Boom......................................... 51 4. Shortcomings of the Wind Boom................................ 52 5. The Free Market Approach 1986 to 1992 ................... 53 ∗ J.D., University of Oregon School of Law, 2009; Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 2008–2009; Recipient, Tax Law Certificate of Completion; B.S., Oregon State University, 2002. I want to thank the editorial staff of the Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation for their friendship and masterful edits. I also want to extend my appreciation to the excellent tax law faculty at the University of Oregon, Professors Roberta Mann and Nancy Shurtz, for their guidance and feedback. Finally, and most importantly, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my incredible wife Kathleen for her patience and support.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of The: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Where Is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta?
    Overview of the: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Where is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta? To San Francisco Stockton Clifton Court Forebay / California Aqueduct The Delta Protecting California from a Catastrophic Loss of Water California depends on fresh water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta)to: Supply more than 25 million Californians, plus industry and agriculture Support $400 billion of the state’s economy A catastrophic loss of water from the Delta would impact the economy: Total costs to California’s economy could be $30-40 billion in the first five years Total job loss could exceed 30,000 Delta Inflow Sacramento River Delta Cross Channel San Joaquin River State Water Project Pumps Central Valley Project Pumps How Water Gets to the California Economy Land Subsidence Due to Farming and Peat Soil Oxidation - 30 ft. - 20 ft. - 5 ft. Subsidence ~ 1.5 ft. per decade Total of 30 ft. in some areas - 30 feet Sea Level 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento 6.5 Earthquake—Resulting in 20 Islands Being Flooded Aerial view of the Delta while flying southwest over Sacramento The Importance of the Delta Water flowing through the Delta supplies water to the Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Energy Future
    California’s Energy Future: The View to 2050 Summary Report May 2011 Jane C. S. Long (co-chair) LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared pursuant to a contract between the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). It does not represent the views of the CEC, its employees, or the State of California. The CEC, the State of California, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the use of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would also like to thank the Stephen Bechtel Fund and the California Energy Commision for their contributions to the underwriting of this project. We would also like to thank the California Air Resources Board for their continued support and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for underwriting the leadership of this effort. COPYRIGHT Copyright 2011 by the California Council on Science and Technology. Library of Congress Cataloging Number in Publications Data Main Entry Under Title: California’s Energy Future: A View to 2050 May 2011 ISBN-13: 978-1-930117-44-0 Note: The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) has made every reasonable effort to assure the accuracy of the information in this publication. However, the contents of this publication are subject to changes, omissions, and errors, and CCST does not accept responsibility for any inaccuracies that may occur. CCST is a non-profit organization established in 1988 at the request of the California State Government and sponsored by the major public and private postsecondary institutions of California and affiliate federal laboratories in conjunction with leading private-sector firms.
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2
    Simulation of Flows and Water Quality in the California Aqueduct Using DSM2 Siqing Liu, Bob Suits DWR, Bay Delta Office, Modeling Support Branch 2011 CWEMF Annual Meeting, February 28 –March 2 1 Topics • Project objectives • Aqueduct System modeled • Assumptions / issues with modeling • Model results –Flows / Storage, EC, Bromide 2 Objectives Simulate Aqueduct hydraulics and water quality • 1990 – 2010 period • DSM2 Aqueduct version calibrated by CH2Mhill Achieve 1st step in enabling forecasting Physical System Canals simulated • South Bay Aqueduct (42 miles) • California Aqueduct (444 miles) • East Branch to Silverwood Lake • West Branch to Pyramid Lake (40 miles) • Delta‐Mendota Canal (117 miles) 4 Physical System, cont Pumping Plants Banks Pumping Plant Buena Vista (Check 30) Jones Pumping Plant Teerink (Check 35) South Bay Chrisman (Check 36) O’Neill Pumping-Generating Edmonston (Check 40) Gianelli Pumping-Generating Alamo (Check 42) Dos Amigos (Check 13) Oso (West Branch) Las Perillas (Costal branch) Pearblossom (Check 58) 5 Physical System, cont Check structures and gates • Pools separated by check structures throughout the aqueduct system (SWP: 66, DMC: 21 ) • Gates at check structures regulate flow rates and water surface elevation 6 Physical System, cont Turnout and diversion structures • Water delivered to agricultural and municipal contractors through diversion structures • Over 270 diversion structures on SWP • Over 200 turnouts on DMC 7 Physical System, cont Reservoirs / Lakes Represented as complete mixing of water body •
    [Show full text]