Hydropower or Salmon?
The Feather River Fish Barrier Dam in Oroville, California Kelly M. Grow/ California Department of Water Resources
Don’t Buy Into this False Choice Narrative
By Max Gomberg
Some California energy utilities recently sent letters to the State Water Resources Control Board commenting on the agency’s proposed updates to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. The plan lists several alternatives, including some that would increase freshwater flows through the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento River/San Joaquin River Delta Estuary.
Such flows are necessary to bring California’s once mighty salmon runs back from the brink of extinction. Salmon need clean, cold water delivered at critical times of the year to survive, but the utilities think such enhanced “unimpaired” flows are a horrible idea.
The California Municipal Utilities Association claims increased cold water flows from the state’s reservoirs “…would reduce the reliability of California’s grid by requiring dam owners to release water in the spring, leaving less water for hydroelectric generation to offset peak demand in the summer…” The CMUA letter also maintains hydroelectric generation is critical during multi-year year droughts to ease pressure on the grid during heat waves.
In its comment letter, PG&E expressed the same objections, adding ominously that “…The loss in carbon-free generation will be replaced by natural gas generation with significant carbon emissions.”
However, California’s foremost major energy problem isn’t hydropower capacity: it’s providing enough power – from all sources – and keeping demand down, especially during hot afternoon and early evening hours on peak demand days. Not surprisingly, the worst such days occur during extended droughts when hydropower availability is at low ebb. During extreme droughts, hydropower provides only 5% of the state’s annual electric generation.
A recent study by Next 10, a nonprofit group that researches California’s economic and environmental intersections, found that the state’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions are not meeting the mark. It’s clear that we need to accelerate our investments in renewables, storage, efficiency, and demand response. Rising electricity bills also indicate that we need to allocate these costs more equitably. The utilities’ claims that we need hydropower to avoid carbon emissions from burning natural gas and that data privacy inhibits equitable rates are convenient excuses to ignore these unmet goals and the urgent need to reduce the risk of blackouts on peak demand days.
California’s rivers have been under assault for decades and their health is critical to the state’s ability to manage increasing climate variability. As temperatures warm and droughts become increasingly frequent, our rivers’ ability to accommodate human and ecosystem needs is even more strained. We need to prioritize ecosystem health, efficient urban use, and domestic food security over export profits from crops like nuts and rice. By cutting the massive volumes of water consumed by corporations to maximize windfall profits, we can manage droughts without massive fish kills and emergency water conservation rules.
Simply put, framing the issue as restoring salmon or keeping the lights on is a false choice. Our carbon reduction and ecosystem resilience actions can and must go hand-in-hand. A rising chorus of environmentally concerned Californians from all walks of life is demanding change. Energy utilities siding with corporate agriculture to support the unsustainable status quo is just another indication they are not the climate champions they claim to be.