The Brief

In Washington, a dozen dams dot the Columbia River — that mighty waterway carved through the state by a sequence of prehistoric superfloods. Between those dams and the hundreds of others that plug the rivers and tributaries that lace the region, including California and Nevada, the Western United States accounts for most of the hydroelectric energy the country generates from the waters flowing across its landscape. Washington alone captures more than a quarter of that; combined with Oregon and Idaho, the Pacific Northwest lays claim to well over two-fifths of America’s dam-derived electricity. So when a drought hits the region, the nation takes notice.

That happened in 2023 when, according to a recent report, U.S. hydroelectric power hit its lowest level in 22 years. While the atmospheric rivers that poured across California provided the state with abundant energy, the Pacific Northwest endured low summer flows after a late-spring heat wave caused snowpack to melt and river levels to peak earlier than normal. Though dam turbines kept spinning throughout the year — proving that even during a drought the nation’s hydro system remains reliable — last year offered energy providers in the West a glimpse of the conditions they may need to adapt to as the world warms and seasonal weather patterns shift.

While models predict climate change will plunge California and the Southwest deeper into drought, what awaits Washington and Oregon is less clear. The Pacific Northwest will get warmer. That much is certain. But in terms of the rain that places like Seattle and Portland are known for, things get fuzzier.

“Whenever you bring in water precipitation and you’re looking at climate model results, they go in all directions,” said Sean Turner, a water resources and hydropower engineer with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Evergreen and Beaver states could get drier or wetter — or both, depending on the time of year.

Nathalie Voisin, chief scientist for water-energy dynamics at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said much of the latest research suggests an increase in total annual hydroelectric power in the region, but, as Turner noted as well, uncertainties remain. “So as a trend, we see an increase” in annual precipitation, Voisin said, “but we also see an increase in variability of very wet years and very dry years.”

Even during wet years, however, the water won’t fall in a gentle mist evenly distributed from new year to year end. The bulk of it, Voisin said, is expected to come from atmospheric rivers streaming overhead between fall and spring, with rivers running low in late summer as the snow and ice in the mountains that rim the region melt ever earlier and no longer keep the waters as high as they historically have.

These are things that the Bonneville Power Administration — the federal agency responsible for selling energy from the 31 federally owned dams along the Columbia and its tributaries to utilities throughout the region — has a keen eye on. In a fact sheet detailing the agency’s plans to ensure its hydropower resources remain resilient, the administration wrote, “By the 2030s, higher average fall and winter flows, earlier peak spring runoff, and longer periods of low summer flows are very likely.” Those times of lower hydroelectric generation will coincide with periods when rising temps are expected to drive people to demand more from their thermostats to keep comfortable.

The Grand Coulee Dam is seen through the windows of the dam’s visitor center.

(

Don and Melinda Crawford

/

Education Images / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

)

Given this, if Western states like California, Washington, and Oregon are to meet the 2045 goals for 100 percent clean energy they’ve set, their utilities are going to have to get creative. As it is, when hydropower fails to meet demand, methane, also known as natural gas, tends to fill the gap — even if power companies can’t say for sure that that’s their backstop.

Seattle City Light, for instance, which provides electricity to over 900,000 people across much of the Seattle area, reportedly has been carbon neutral since 2005 thanks in large part to an energy mix that is nearly 90 percent hydropower — around half of which is supplied by Bonneville Power. But with its standard fleet of hydroelectric plants generating below average, Siobhan Doherty, the utility’s director of power management, said it has had to procure new sources of energy to ensure it can comfortably meet customers’ needs. A fair portion of that power comes from other dams in the area, but some of it is also provided by what Doherty called “unspecified” sources purchased from other providers.

Across the West, when utilities like Seattle City Light purchase energy to cover hydropower shortfalls, most of it comes from gas-powered peaker plants, according to Minghao Qiu, an environmental scientist at Stanford University. As a result, emissions rise. Over the 20-year period examined in a study of how droughts impact grid emissions, Qiu and his colleagues found that temporary prolonged hydropower declines led to 121 million tons of carbon emissions. Qiu also found that the plants belching all that pollution often lay far from where the energy is needed.

While the seemingly obvious solution to this challenge is to rapidly deploy wind and solar, Qiu found that this didn’t actually solve the problem.

“So what really happened there is an implicit market that whoever can generate the electricity with the lowest costs are going to generate first,” Qiu said. This means that solar and wind will send all the energy they can because they’re by far the cheapest; hydropower then provides what it can, followed by fossil fuels like methane to plug any holes. “So when hydropower sort of declines,” Qiu said, “the wind power and solar power is already maxed out,” typically leaving gas plants as the remaining option.

Nonetheless, in a bid to keep its grid carbon-free in the long term, Seattle City Light recently signed agreements to buy energy from two independent solar projects, each with at least 40 megawatts of capacity, and is negotiating other, similar arrangements. The fact Bonneville Power has seen a sharp rise in requests from renewable energy developers to connect to its transmission lines suggests other utilities in the region are exploring similar deals.

While those solar farms, in a sense, address the demands that hydro alone can’t meet, the West’s dams help make utility-scale renewables work. Regardless of the inevitable expansion and improvement of turbine and photovoltaic technology, wind and solar will always be intermittent and weather-dependent. In those moments when the gusts stop blowing and the sun stops shining, something has to top off the grid. “Hydro does that better than anything,” Turner said.

Many of the dams administered by Bonneville Power are already equipped to spin up or down as demand dictates, and their ability to meet these moments was perhaps no more apparent than during the lethal heat dome that gripped the Pacific Northwest for one blistering week in June 2021. As streets cracked and power lines melted, the region’s homebound populations drove electricity demand to record levels. To keep the grid going, Bonneville Power relied on the controversial dams along the lower Snake River. The agency released a statement a month after the heat wave, revealing how critical the four lower Snake River dams were during that disaster. At times, they provided well over 1,000 megawatts of power, which is roughly the average draw in Seattle. And while there are credible reasons to remove the dams, Bonneville Power said that without those resources it likely would have had to resort to rolling blackouts to ensure the system wasn’t pushed past its limits.

That experience, and the many more like it that are sure to come, suggest that even as year-to-year dips impact the nation’s dams, the power they provide will long remain a critical component of a carbon-free future.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/drought/rivers-are-the-wests-largest-source-of-clean-energy-what-happens-when-drought-strikes/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled what is likely one of the last large climate announcements of his tenure: California will move forward with linking its decade-old carbon market with a newly formed market in Washington state, aiming to merge it with the market California already shares with Quebec.

Newsom said California was “choosing certainty, partnership, and clean energy” amid a stream of federal climate policy rollbacks.

But the announcement didn’t distract environmental advocates from the sting of a challenging year back home for the so-called “cap-and-invest” program. As Newsom leaves his post, many policy and climate experts say the adjustments to the program put California’s climate goals further out of reach. The program provides billions of dollars in funding for climate and other programs.

Yet with little talk of climate policy in the governor's race, Californians are largely left guessing about how Steve Hilton or Xavier Becerra would handle the program or California’s broader climate ambitions. The Becerra campaign did not respond to multiple emailed requests for comment. Hilton told CalMatters he would move to suspend the carbon market — which he called “a disaster of a program” — entirely.

Twenty years ago, lawmakers made California the first state to mandate broad cuts in greenhouse gas emissions with AB 32, the landmark carbon emissions reduction law, which authorized the subsequent creation of a market. The law requires the program to be as cost-effective as possible while maximizing benefits to the state’s economy.

Whoever wins in November can appoint a handful of new members to the California Air Resources Board, which has to finish writing the linkage rules and will propose the budget that leans on carbon market revenue. The next governor will also help decide how aggressively California leads on climate, after a year of mixed signals about where the program is headed.

“It's really set up the politics of these issues to get worse and not better over time, and that is the problem that is being tossed like a live grenade into the lap of the next governor,” said Danny Cullenward, an economist who sits on an advisory committee focused on the carbon market.

A question of climate leadership

In May, a process to reauthorize the keystone climate program ended with a controversial agreement that the Legislative Analyst’s Office projects will roughly halve annual auction revenue, offering about $2 billion less in funding for priority environmental programs while opening a separate pool of free permits for polluters that pledge to invest in decarbonization, valued at as much as $4 billion.

Oil companies fought the initial cap-and-invest reauthorization proposal, arguing it would encourage companies to leave the state or further increase fuel prices. The California Air Resources Board, which manages the program, said the increased allowances it eventually approved were meant to balance affordability and economic uncertainty alongside emissions targets. In an email, a board spokesperson said the new incentives would not have any impact on the market’s auction revenue. (The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents refiners in the state, declined an interview for this story.)

The concern comes as California prepares to elect its next governor and nears its own 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels, on its way to zeroing out emissions by 2045.

“This is not a question anymore of whether or not we'll reach the target. This is a guarantee that we won't,” said Katie Valenzuela, a consultant for Communities for a Better Environment who previously co-chaired an environmental justice committee that advised regulators on the state’s program.

State officials have long framed cap-and-invest as a backstop, keeping the state on track for its climate targets by ratcheting down the emissions limit even if other programs fall short. Advocates worry the changes will have a chilling effect rather than signal the market’s long-term strength, just as California loses ground to federal rollbacks.

“It is going to become very difficult for us to say we are a climate leader when we are visibly missing our targets,” Cullenward said.

Others remain more optimistic. Cap-and-invest is one tool in California’s toolbox, even if this year dulled it. Meredith Fowlie, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, said the program is not optimal but has done the basics of its job: sending a price signal to drive down emissions while raising revenues for important programs.

Linking with Washington’s market will strengthen California’s program overall, air board Chair Lauren Sanchez wrote to Newsom in September. In addition to creating a larger market with more credits available to industries in both states, the link is expected to raise carbon credit prices in California, where recent auctions have yielded prices at state minimums. A connected market could also lower prices in Washington, making the state’s more stringent program less lucrative. Low prices reduce the program’s revenues and starve polluting industries’ incentive to invest in lowering emissions.

Regulators have not yet established a rulemaking timeline for the linkage process, a spokesperson for the board told CalMatters, but the board expects the joint market to begin operating next year.

Chloe Ames, policy adviser at NextGen Policy, an organization founded by former gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, called linkage a strong step forward. The group is disappointed by the other changes made to cap-and-invest this year, she said, and will keep urging the legislature to adjust the industry incentives and California’s next governor to take climate seriously.

“It's been more challenging for us to say that we're a climate leader, and that's why we need to step up,” Ames said. “In this work, what are you going to do other than to be hopeful?”

Kicking the can

Since the market began, revenue has funded a wide range of priorities, including job training, clean energy and affordable housing. Managing those investments, alongside costs to Californians and emissions cuts, has been a balancing act — one the next governor will inherit, Fowlie said. “Some of those objectives are potentially in tension,” she said. “A sole focus on designing the program to meet our greenhouse gas reductions misses this really important larger picture that this program is about more than that.”

The legislature approved the program’s reauthorization and the state’s air regulators lay out its rules, but a governor has influence over how that process plays out and can exert his own priorities, Cullenward said.

Beyond the carbon market, governors have wider latitude: Newsom has used his executive authority on wildfires, water shortages and clean energy.

In the governor’s race, neither candidate has centered climate in his campaign. In their one debate, both candidates steered a question about climate change’s impacts toward affordability concerns, offering little detail on the actual climate policies they favor.

“I think it's fair to say that climate probably isn't the top priority of either one,” said Barry Vesser, the chief operating officer at the Climate Center, a California environmental group that opposed this year’s changes to the carbon market.

Becerra’s campaign website emphasizes affordability in climate policy. He has faced criticism for defending Chevron and for accepting large oil and gas donations. As attorney general, though, he defended the state’s carbon program in court, arguing that “carbon pollution knows no borders” and promising that California would fight the first Trump administration’s rollbacks.

Hilton has rallied against California’s Democratic establishment, and he told CalMatters he would aim to de-bloat the bureaucracy guiding the state’s climate policies. He likened the market’s recent programmatic changes to “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” Hilton, who considers himself an environmentalist, has argued for redirecting resources from current climate programs and wildfire mitigation toward management of the state’s natural lands. He also wants to rework renewable incentives to create “a level playing field” for technologies like rooftop solar, hydropower and geothermal energy. His strategy, he claims, will reduce economic burdens for Californians while exceeding the state’s climate targets.

The relative lack of attention to climate policy is a missed opportunity, according to Valenzuela and Vesser. They see a chance for the next governor to more directly and publicly connect climate programs to affordability, a key concern for likely voters and an issue on which Becerra and Hilton agree.

Ultimately, the race’s rhetoric has advocates like Valenzuela “freaked out.” She points to a “huge chasm” between present reality and the policies that would put California on the right track. The state has little time left for the aggressive action its climate ambitions require, she and other advocates say, and it’s time to start dealing in reality.

“There's not many more governors left we can kick the can to before that bill comes due,” Cullenward said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.