E3 - Climate Change Impacts in the Western Interconnection ...

E3 - Climate Change Impacts in the Western Interconnection ...

Climate Change Impacts on the Western Interconnection Recommendations for WECCs Energy-WaterClimate Change Scenario November 2, 2015 Dr. Fritz Kahrl Nick Schlag Conleigh Byers Sheridan Grant Arne Olson Study background WECC developing Energy-Water-Climate Change (EWCC) Scenario that incorporates climate change impacts on Western Interconnection (WI) in 2034 WECC engaged E3 to assess potential impacts on transmission and generation systems in WI E3 work focused on three tasks: Review existing literature on key climate change impacts Translate impact results from literature to EWCC inputs, where possible Recommend additional analytical work 2 Report overview Executive summary (presentation) Background on regional climate change impact forecasts for WI

Review of electricity system impact forecasts for WI region Conclusions and recommendations 3 Executive summary contents Overview of E3 approach Summaries by climate change impact category Summary of recommended approach for EWCC scenario Recommendations for additional analytical work Implications for WECC transmission planning Recommended reading 4 WECC provided E3 with list of variables of interest Climate Indicator Increased average temperature Electricity Sector Impact Accelerated deterioration of equipment Decreased efficiency of transmission and distribution

equipment due to operation outside of thermal design parameters Increased operation and maintenance needs Increased line losses in electricity flow Reduced fuel conversion efficiency in thermal generating stations that use water as the cooling medium Reduced fuel conversion efficiency in thermal generating stations that use dry cooling Reductions in the sunlight conversion efficiency , including possible impacts on inverters, of solar photovoltaic facilities Reductions in the maximum output capability of thermal generating stations that use water as the

cooling medium Increased energy demand (summer e.g., to power air conditioning ; decreased motor efficiency, including pumping, treating, and transporting more water; higher irrigation demand for food production due to increased pond/canal evaporation and drying soil moisture) Decreased energy demand (winter) as a result of reduced electric heating loads Impact of longer construction season on energy demands Reduced service and repair labor productivity during more frequent heat waves Decreased availability and increased safety risks to service employees during heat waves Changes in precipitation patterns (timing, rate, location and nature of precipitation)

Increased rate of decay or corrosion processes Possible impacts on dam safety Lower water levels (increased pumping loads at existing locations, larger number of new water wells with attendant electric pumping loads, pressure reductions and attendant derates in m aximum output capability at hydroelectric generating plants, impacts on pumped storage hydro facilities in both charge and discharge modes) Unanticipated storm tracks Changes in running water discharge to drive turbines Changes in slope stability affecting electric infrastructure (e.g., electric tower foundations)

Infrastructure failure (e.g., collapsing lines under ice loads) Galloping lines leading to transmission failure Increased maintenance requirements Increased peak demand Higher infrastructure risk Potential impact on reservoirs and flows Erosion and sedimentation impacts on plant cooling water delivery and availability Changes in number of freeze/thaw cycles

Damage to concrete (moisture expansion/contraction) Increased need for infrastructure maintenance Vegetation and ecosystem shifts Changes in line and right-of-way maintenance schedules and tree clearing More frequent extreme weather events (heat, wind, rain, ice, drought, flood , lightning) Forest fire hazards 5 From WECC list, E3 created priority list Priority ranking based on expected impact (L, M, H) and expected data availability (L, M,

H) E3 process: start with high priority items, adjust list adaptively, move down list as time and budget permit Item Category Expected Impact Data Availability Priority Rank Increased line losses in electricity flow Reduced fuel conversion effi ciency in thermal generating stations that use water as the cooling medium Reduced fuel conversion effi ciency in thermal generating

stations that use dry cooling Reductions in the maximum output capability of thermal generating stations that use water as the cooling medium Increased energy demand (summer) e.g., to power air conditioning Increased average temperature Increased average temperature M H 1 M H 1 Increased average temperature M H

1 Increased average temperature H M 1 Increased average temperature H H 1 Decreased energy demand (winter) as a result of reduced electric heating loads Increased average (over time) peak demand as a result of higher summer temperatures Reductions in the sunlight conversion efficiency, including possible impacts on inverters, of solar photovoltaic facilities Accelerated deterioration of

equipment Increased operation and maintenance needs Impact of longer construction season on energy demands Increased rate of decay or corrosion processes Increased average temperature H H 1 Increased average temperature H H 1 Increased average temperature L H

1 Increased average temperature Increased average temperature Increased average temperature Changes in precipitation patterns M L 2 M L 2 L M 2 M

L 2 6 and distilled priority list into final impact categories Priority List Reductions in the maximum output capability of thermal generating stations that use water as the cooling medium Reduced fuel conversion efficiency in thermal generating stations that use water as the cooling medium Reduced fuel conversion efficiency in thermal generating stations that use dry cooling Increased line losses in electricity flow Increased energy demand (summer) e.g., to power air conditioning Decreased energy demand (winter) as a result of reduced electric heating loads Final Impact Categories 1. Load 2. Thermal generation 3. Hydropower 4. Solar PV 5. Transmission system

Increased average (over time) peak demand as a result of higher summer temperatures Reductions in the sunlight conversion efficiency, including possible impacts on inverters, of solar photovoltaic facilities Reductions in maximum capacity and monthly energy at hydro facilities 7 Study focused around literature review Review literature on: Climate change impacts on electricity systems in WI, U.S. Temperature dependence of generation and transmission systems Translate impacts to recommended inputs for EWCC scenario Recommended inputs intended to be wellgrounded in literature, simple to apply, and meaningful 8 Recommended inputs based on range of estimates from literature EWCC scenario based on 3F (1.7C) increase in average temperatures by 2034 General approach: Develop range of impact estimates based on literature For climate impact studies, focus on estimates that are consistent with EWCC warming levels and time horizon For temperature dependence studies, use EWCC warming (3F)

and multipliers from the literature to translate to total impact estimate Select plausible input values based on range of estimates 9 Within WI, most impact assessment work in California and Pacific NW Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program established California Climate Change Center in 2003; supports ongoing impact assessments, required by Governors Executive Order in 2008 More information: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/ reports/climate_assessments.html Washington legislature supported Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment by Climate Impacts Group (CIG, University of Washington) in 2009; Oregon legislature established Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) in 2007, supported Oregon Climate Assessment Report in 2010; Collaboration among WA, OR, ID on Pacific Northwest study More information: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/, http://occri.net/ 10 Typical steps in climate change impact studies

1 Choose GCMs and scenarios (SRES or RCP) 2 Downscale results to region of interest (e.g., WI region) 3 Apply results to component of interest (e.g., temperature effects on gas turbines) 4 Assess final impacts (e.g., impact on generation adequacy) 11 Models agree on general trends, disagree on specifics Models Agree Average temperature increase for Western U.S., greater in summer than winter Heat extremes increase, cold extremes decrease Models

Disagree Magnitude of change in temperature extremes, temperature profiles, regional changes in temperature Decreases in summer precipitation in U.S. Northwest Sign of annual precipitation changes (+/-), change in precipitation variability Sea levels rise Extent of sea level rise Forest fire frequency, intensity, duration increases Fire counts; magnitude of fire intensity and duration Storm frequency, intensity increases Storm counts; magnitude of storm intensity and duration Model uncertainty remains a significant source of uncertainty in climate change impact analysis

12 Results organized around five impact categories Describes, for each impact category: Final Impact Categories Mechanisms through which climate change impacts occur 1. Load Key projections of climate change impacts 3. Hydropower Recommended approach for EWCC scenario 5. Transmission system 2. Thermal generation 4. Solar PV 13 Load: Climate impact mechanisms Higher ambient temperatures: Increase cooling loads

increase demand for AC in areas that dont currently use it require more energy to maintain room temperature in areas that do use AC reduce efficiency of cooling devices Reduce heating loads require less energy to maintain room temperature increase efficiency of heating devices Largest cooling impacts in regions with low AC ownership (e.g., Pacific Northwest) For electricity, heating impacts only in regions with electric heating (e.g., Pacific Northwest) 14 Load: Results and recommendations Key Findings: In Pacific Northwest, significant increase in summer cooling loads, smaller decrease in winter heating loads In California, modest increase in peak and energy demand In rest of Southwest and Great Plains (MT, WY), limited existing analysis

Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Pacific Northwest Summer loads +10% Winter loads -5% California and Southwest Summer loads +3% Great Plains No change 15 Thermal generation: Climate impact mechanisms (1) Different effects on gas turbines (GTs = CTs, CCGTs) and steam turbines (STs = CCGTs, nuclear, coal) Higher ambient temperatures: Reduce output and efficiency for GTs Lower air density (lowers mass flow) Increased compressor work Reduce output and efficiency for STs Increased condenser pressure Potentially lead to de-rates for STs Related to cooling water discharge violations 16 Thermal generation: Climate

impact mechanisms (2) Lower precipitation: Potentially leads to de-rates for STs Lack of adequate water for cooling Impacts on GTs/STs depend on technologies and site-specific conditions Impacts on STs depend on cooling systems Once through cooling (OTC), evaporative (wet) cooling, dry cooling Impacts on GTs depend on inlet cooling systems 17 Thermal generation: Results and recommendations Key Findings: Small incremental temperature-driven impacts Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Capacity de-rate for GTs/STs likely 1-2%

GT/ST performance No change Heat rate increases likely < 1% ST water-related impacts Consider drought scenario with 5% summer capacity de-rate for STs Larger potential waterrelated impacts STs vulnerable to drought conditions 18 Hydropower: Climate impact mechanisms Changes in precipitation: Influence hydro output Directly, e.g. through changes in rainfall Indirectly, e.g. through changes in runoff Increasing ambient temperatures: Increase evaporation, upstream water use Trigger restrictions on hydro use to protect ecosystems

19 Hydropower: Results and recommendations Key Findings: Significant uncertainty in climate model precipitation projections Consensus on reduction in summer hydro generation in PNW Southwest currently experiencing hydro de-rates due to drought Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Pacific Northwest Summer hydro generation -15% Scale winter hydro generation so annual hydro generation unchanged Southwest Consider drought scenario with: (1) 20% reduction in annual hydro generation in AZ, (2) 20% reduction in hydro qualifying

capacity, 50% reduction in annual hydro generation in CA 20 Solar PV: Climate impact mechanisms Higher ambient temperatures: Reduce conversion efficiency and output for PV cells Lead to inverter de-rates at very high temperatures, reducing AC output Changes in cloud cover: change irradiance (very uncertain) 21 Solar PV: Results and recommendations Key Findings: Incremental de-rates on PV likely to be small Around 1-2% Temperature impacts on inverter de-rates more uncertain,

coincident impacts likely to be small Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Solar PV performance No change 22 Transmission system: Climate impact mechanisms Higher ambient temperatures: Increase line losses, resulting from: Higher loads Higher line resistance May reduce line capacity, resulting from: Higher resistive heating and line sag 23 Transmission system: Results and recommendations Key Findings: For planning, line losses likely to be

most important impact on transmission system Other impacts may affect operations; unclear if / at what point they begin to affect planning Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Line losses Ensure line losses scale with loads Line capacity No change 24 Summary of recommended approach for EWCC Case 1: Average Year Loads Pacific Northwest Summer loads +10% Winter loads -5% California and Southwest Summer loads +3% Great Plains No change Hydropower Pacific Northwest

Summer generation -15% Scale winter generation so annual generation unchanged Case 2: Drought Year Average Year Plus Thermal Generation Region-wide 5% summer capacity de-rate for STs Hydropower Arizona Annual hydro generation -20% California Hydro qualifying capacity -20% Annual hydro generation -50% 25 Recommendations for further analytical work Two areas where further analysis would have greatest value: Load forecasting Comprehensive screen for WI, focused on temperature impacts Requires medium-term forecasts of cooling and heating degree days for region; also important to consider heat index Analytical framework for testing electricity system resiliency to extreme events Scenario framework for assessing thresholds at which larger system changes occur

Benefit-cost framework for assessing investments to enhance resiliency 26 Implications for WECC transmission planning EWCC currently a sensitivity case At what point should WECC base case forecasts begin to incorporate potential climate change impacts? How should these potential impacts be structured into load and generation forecasting? 27 Recommended reading (full bibliography at the end) Auffhammer, Maximilian and Anin Aroonruengsawat. Hotspots of Climate-driven Increases in Residential Electricity Demand: A Simulation Exercise Based on Household Level Billing Data for California. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2012a. Bartos, Matthew D. and Mikhail V. Chester. Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the Western United States. Nature Climate Change 5, 2015, 748751. Maulbetsch, John S. and Michael N. DiFilippo. Cost and Value of Water Use at Combined-Cyle Power Plants. CEC-500-2006-034. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2006. Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2010.

Sale, Michael J. and Shih-Chieh Kao. Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Federal Hydropower: An Assessment Prepared in Response to Section 9505(c) of the SECURE Water Act of 2009. ORNL/TM-2011/251. Oak Ridge, TN: DOE, 2012. Maulbetsch, John S. and Michael N. DiFilippo. Cost and Value of Water Use at Combined-Cyle Power Plants. CEC-500-2006-034. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2006. Westerling, Anthony. Climate Forecasts for Improving Management of Energy and Hydropower Resources in the Western U.S. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2008. 28 Thank You! Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel 415-391-5100 Web http://www.ethree.com Dr. Fritz Kahrl, Managing Consultant ([email protected]) Arne Olson, Partner ([email protected]) BACKGROUND: CLIMATE IMPACT FORECASTS IN WI 30 Regional forecasts of climate change impacts rely on global climate models Assessments of climate change impacts based on climate model forecasts Climate models are intrinsically global general circulation models (GCMs) that capture earth oceanatmosphere interaction

Source: https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_models.php Two general approaches to forecasting (downscaling) regional climate impacts with GCMs: Statistical scale local variables using GCM output and statistics Nesting link regional climate model (RCM) with a GCM Many GCMs in use, differ in model design and sensitivities Models differ in temperature and precipitation sensitivity to radiative forcing Model name Organization Parallel Climate Model (PCM) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate System Model (CCSM) NCAR CM (GFDL) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA HadCM3 UK Hadley Center

ECHAM Max Planck Institute for Meteorology CNRM-CM Centre National de Recherches Mtorologiques Newer Models MPI-ESM Max Planck Institute for Meteorology HadGEM2-CC UK Hadley Center And many more 32 GCMs initially driven by GHG emission scenarios Before 2014, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports (ARs) rely on GHG emission scenarios Emission scenarios for AR3 and AR4

developed in 2000 Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) 6 SRES scenarios Figure: Global GHG Emissions and Warming by SRES Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-5.html Less Warm SRES B1 A1T B2 A1B Warmer A2 A1Fi 33 Shift to GHG concentration pathways in IPCC AR5

Representative concentration pathways (RCPs) adopted in AR5 Figure: Global GHG Emissions and Concentrations by RCP Link emissions, concentrations, and radiative forcing Number in RCP represents radiative forcing level by 2100, e.g., RCP8.5 is a 8.5 Watts per m2 forcing by 2100 Source: van Vuuren et al., 2011 Low RCP 2.6 Warming 4.5 6

High 8.5 Four RCPs 34 Some amount of warming already committed B1 and RCP 4.5 are probably most plausible GHG emission reduction scenarios, global GHG emissions peak in ~2040 SRES GHG Emissions RCP CO2 Emissions B1 RCP4.5 Likely increases in global average surface temperature of 1.12.9C (2.0-5.2F) by end century* * Based on IPCC AR4 likely range for B1 (1.1-2.9C) and AR5 likely range for RCP4.5 (1.1-2.9C) 35

Interpreting climate model results GCMs typically produce time-averaged results in 30-year time horizons focus on climate regimes rather than individual years Studies often use multiple models and scenarios Table from Cayan et al., 2007, Climate Change Scenarios for the California Region 30-year horizon Multiple models Multiple scenarios 36 Models agree on general trends, disagree on specifics Models Agree Average temperature increase for Western U.S., greater in summer than winter Heat extremes increase, cold extremes decrease Models Disagree Magnitude of change in temperature extremes, temperature profiles, regional changes in temperature

Decreases in summer precipitation in U.S. Northwest Sign of annual precipitation changes (+/-), change in precipitation variability Sea levels rise Extent of sea level rise Forest fire frequency, intensity, duration increases Fire counts; magnitude of fire intensity and duration Storm frequency, intensity increases Storm counts; magnitude of storm intensity and duration Model uncertainty remains a significant source of uncertainty in climate change impact analysis 37 Typical steps in climate change impact studies

1 Choose GCMs and scenarios (SRES or RCP) 2 Downscale results to region of interest (e.g., WI region) 3 Apply results to component of interest (e.g., temperature effects on gas turbines) 4 Assess final impacts (e.g., impact on generation adequacy) 38 Within WI, most impact assessment work in California and Pacific NW Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program established California Climate Change Center in 2003; supports ongoing impact assessments, required by Governors Executive Order in 2008 More information: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/ reports/climate_assessments.html Washington legislature supported Washington

Climate Change Impacts Assessment by Climate Impacts Group (CIG, University of Washington) in 2009; Oregon legislature established Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) in 2007, supported Oregon Climate Assessment Report in 2010; Collaboration among WA, OR, ID on Pacific Northwest study More information: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/, http://occri.net/ 39 ELECTRICITY SYSTEM IMPACT REVIEW 40 Review organized around impact categories For each impact category: Describe mechanisms governing impacts Describe scope and nature of existing studies Show impact estimate ranges Final Impact Categories 1. Load 2. Thermal generation 3. Hydropower 4. Solar PV

5. Transmission system 41 Climate impacts on electricity system translated via intermediate impacts Climate change affects electricity system metrics through impact chain Climate change impact chain Climate change variable Environment response Mechanism 1: How are changes in global climate translated into changes in local environment? Electricity component impact Mechanism 2: How are changes in environment translated into

impacts on electricity components? Electricity system impact Mechanism 3: How are changes in electricity components translated into impacts on system metrics? 42 Example impact chain Example: Impact of increased temperature extremes (intensity, frequency, duration of heat waves) on system reliability Increase in temperature extremes Reduction in air density Mechanism 1: Increases in temperature reduce density of air, from ideal gas law

Reduction in GT output Mechanism 2: For GTs, lower air density reduces mass flow rate () through turbine, decreases power output Reduction in reliability Mechanism 3: All else equal, reduced peak period output changes reliability metric (e.g., LOLE) 43 Studies focus on different parts of impact chain Climate impact studies differ in focus, comprehensiveness Climate change variable

Some studies focus only on T impacts, though effects may compound (e.g., heat and drought) Environment response Electricity component impact Electricity system impact Some studies focus more on single component, multiple impacts (e.g., temperature impact on GT output and efficiency) Some studies focus more on system impact, more than one

component (e.g., impact on total WECC available capacity) 44 Study focused on review of existing literature Review literature on: Climate change impacts on WI, U.S. Temperature dependence of generation and transmission system Translate to recommended inputs for EWCC scenario Recommended inputs intended to be wellgrounded in literature, simple to apply, and meaningful 45 Recommended inputs based on ranges in literature General approach: EWCC scenario based on 3F (1.7C) increase in average temperatures by 2034 In instances where system impact estimates exist, draw on B1 or RCP4.5 scenario results Example: increase in peak electricity demand under a given SRES/ RCP scenario in a given time horizon Mainly useful for gauging longer-term projections; scenarios more consistent before ~2040

In instances where component impact estimates exist, use EWCC temperature as reference Example: decrease in gas turbine rated capacity per each degree of temperature increase Use 1.5 multiplier (Cayan et al., 2012; Dalton et al., 2013) to convert to summer high temperature proxy (i.e., 1.7C x 1.5 = ~2.6C) for use where relevant 46 Impact category 1: Load Focus on: Increased summer peak and energy demand from higher summer temperatures Increased energy demand (summer) e.g., to power air conditioning Decreased energy demand (winter) as a result of reduced electric heating loads Increased average (over time) peak demand as a result of higher summer temperatures Decreased winter peak and energy from lower winter temperatures Regions: Pacific Northwest, California,

Southwest, Great Plains 47 Climate change increases cooling, reduces heating needs Increased Cooling Needs Higher energy required to maintain same room temperature during summer Cooling device efficiency decreases at higher temperatures Decreased Heating Needs Less energy required to maintain same room temperature during winter Heating devices more efficient at warmer temperatures Affects multiple cooling loads, but primarily air conditioning Affects multiple heating loads, but primarily space heating Impacts summer peak capacity and total energy needs

Impacts winter peak capacity and total energy needs 48 Forecasted load impacts vary across space and time Projected temperature changes vary across seasons, time of day Generally increases higher in daytime in hotter months; decreases higher in nighttime in colder months Projected load impacts vary across regions Southwest (summer peaking) Higher summer peak, energy demand Potentially longer peak load, spreading to spring, autumn (Lu et al., 2008) Pacific Northwest (winter peaking) Higher summer peak, energy demand Lower winter peak, energy demand (summer increase greater than winter decrease) No impact studies for Great Plains (MT, WY) 49 Different approaches to analyzing load impacts Three main kinds of studies: Regression, using historical system loads and cooling/heating degree day projections (regression

aggregate) Regression, using disaggregated billing data (regression disaggregate) Bottom-up building simulations (building simulation) Focus here on studies that report percentage impact on total or customer loads (e.g., rather than cooling energy demand) 50 Peak demand impacts Source Lu et al., 2008 Miller et al., 2008 Franco and Sanstad, 2008 NPCC, 2010 Geographic Scope Portland, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Boulder, Billings,

Vancouver, Calgary San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino / Riverside, Fresno California Pacific Northwest Study Type Building simulation Regression aggregate Regression aggregate Regression aggregate Load Scope Residential

Residential Total Total Climate Models IPCC HadCM3 PCM GFDL HadCM3 (A1Fi) PCM (B1/A2, low range) GFDL (B1/A2, high range) 2F increase in average temperatures Results Year 2045-2054 2050 2005-2034

2035-2064 2030 Change in peak demand A1B: > +10% A1fi/A2: +3.4%-10.0% B1: +2.8%-7.7% (noncoincident) B1: +1.5-4.2% A2: +1.0-3.8% A1Fi: +4.9% B1: +1.6-5.1% A2: +2.2-5.2% A1Fi: +11.2% 7-8% increase

in summer peak 2-3% reduction in winter peak 51 Energy demand impacts Source Aroonruengsawat and Auffhammer, 2009 Auffhammer and Aroonruengsawat, 2012a Franco and Sanstad, 2008 NPCC, 2010 Geographic Scope California California California Pacific

Northwest Study Type Regression disaggregated Regression disaggregated Regression aggregated Regression aggregated Load Scope Residential Residential Total Total Climate Models PCM CNRM, GFDL, PCM

HadCM3 PCM GFDL 2F increase in average temperatures Results Year 2020-2039 2020-2039 2005-2034 2035-2064 2030 Increase in energy demand B1: 8-9% A2: 5-7% B1: 0.7-2.2%

A2: 0.7-3.0% B1: 0.8-2.3% A2: 1.1-2.6% A1Fi: 3.1% B1: 1.6-3.8% A2: 2.3-4.6% A1Fi: 8.1% 0.5% net annual 52 Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Southwest increase summer loads by +3% Use California range; increase in cooling degree days in SW mainly north vs. south, not coastal vs. inland (Melillo et al., 2014) Pacific Northwest increase summer loads by +10%, decrease winter loads by -5% Use NPCC estimate (for 2F), round up to account for higher

EWCC scenario temperature Should shift peak to summer, should result in small change in annual energy Great Plains no change No evidentiary basis; summer peaking, residential cooling loads small relative to load 53 Impact category 2: Thermal generation Focus on: Temperature-driven impacts on gas and steam turbine capacity and heat rates Water-related impacts on steam turbine capacity Reductions in the maximum output capability of thermal generating stations that use water as the cooling medium Reduced fuel conversion efficiency in thermal generating stations that use water as the cooling medium Reduced fuel conversion efficiency in thermal generating stations that use dry cooling Impact variability across site conditions and

cooling systems 54 Thermal generation impacts vary by technology Gas turbines (GTs) Brayton cycle (CT, CCGT) Inlet and exhaust open to environment, performance significantly impacted by ambient conditions (air temperature, density, atmospheric pressure) No steam cooling needs, though water sometimes used for inlet cooling Steam turbines (STs) Rankine cycle (CCGT, coal, nuclear) Inlet and exhaust closed to environment, performance controlled by boiler, less sensitive to ambient conditions Requires cooling fluid (water, air) to condense steam, sensitive to changes in cooling water temperatures, availability, and discharge limits 55 Temperature is main driver of GT impacts Reduce density of ambient air, leading to lower mass flow rate and lower turbine power output Inlet cooling can reduce output and efficiency

losses, but requires coolant (usually water) Fuel Air Compressor Increase inlet air temperatures, increasing compressor work and reducing net output and efficiency Figure: Standard Brayton Cycle Ambient air Combustion chamber Gases Turbine Higher ambient air temperatures: Ambient air

56 Temperature, precipitation both affect ST impacts Higher ambient air temperatures: Figure: Standard Rankine Cycle Increase cooling water temperatures, leading to: Higher condenser pressure and lower output and efficiency (OTC, wet cooling) Discharge water temperature violations, capacity de-rate Lead to higher condenser pressures where air is cooling medium (dry cooling), lowering output and efficiency Less precipitation: Lowers stream flows, leading to: Reduced water cooling water availability, capacity de-rate 57 ST impacts vary across cooling technologies Three main cooling systems in use

Once-through cooling (OTC), older units Wet (evaporative) cooling, mostly cooling towers Dry cooling, mostly direct, limited to CCGTs Tradeoffs between water use and output/efficiency penalties among technologies, different susceptibilities to climate change Low Medium High ST Impact OTC Wet Dry Capacity and heat rate penalties Reduced cooling water availability Discharge temperature limits 58 Determining precise performance impacts can be complex CCGT performance depends on: Site meteorology (GT) Cooling system (ST)

Performance varies significantly across regions, use of inlet cooling for GT, cooling types for ST Raises baseline questions for analysis Figures are from Maulbetsch and DiFilippo, 2006 59 Determining water-related impacts can be even more complex Water availability depends on: Figure: Major Watersheds in the WI Region stream flow changes in river basins water rights Clean Water Act governs discharge temperatures, allows for local flexibility actual limits vary by generator and state* * See, for instance, Madden et al., 2013

Source: http://nhd.usgs.gov/wbd.html 60 Impacts grouped into two categories GTs Capacity reductions from max (peak period) temperature increases Heat rate increases from average temperature increases STs Capacity Reductions Temperature impacts on GT performance Temperature impacts on ST performance Water availability on ST Water discharge limits on ST Capacity reductions from max (peak period) temperature increases Heat Rate Increases Capacity reductions during periods of water scarcity

Temperature impacts on GT performance Heat rate increases from temperature increases in all hours Temperature impacts on ST performance 61 Broadly, two kinds of impact studies 1) Focus on GT/ST performance Modeled thermodynamic models, most common Manufacturer proprietary, difficult to obtain Empirical (actual performance) very rare 2) Focus on water availability and discharge limits Modeled detailed hydrological models Heuristic relationship between drought and average flows 62 GT performance impact Temperature impact on GT performance (GT only) reasonably well characterized (capacity)/T and (efficiency)/ T are approximately linear Output penalty estimated at

0.5-1.0% reduction in nameplate capacity per 1C temperature increase* Efficiency penalty estimated at 0.2-0.3% increase in instantaneous heat rate per 1C temperature increase** Average heat rate impact will be slightly lower Performance impact /C Nameplate capacity reduction 0.5-1.0% Heat rate increase 0.2-0.3% * Applies to temperatures above ISO conditions (15C); sources: Daycock et al., 2004; Kakaras et al. 2005; De Sa and Al Zubaidy, 2011 ** Applies to temperatures above ISO conditions (15C); sources: Daycock et al., 2004; De Sa and Al Zubaidy, 2011

For context, at above estimates 2.6C translates to ~1-3% reduction in net GT capacity, 1.7C translates to 0.3-0.5% increase in average heat rates 63 CCGT/ST performance impact For CCGTs (both GT and ST), Maulbetsch and DiFilippo study* provides useful range (assumes inlet cooling) /C /C Site Wet Dry Desert 0.3% 0.5% Valley 0.1% 0.4%

Coastal 0.4% 1.1% Mountain 0.0% 0.2% Table: CCGT rated capacity reduction per 1C temperature increase across meteorological conditions (sites) and cooling types (wet, dry) ST performance impacts much smaller, not well characterized for coal, nuclear units * Maulbetsch and DiFilippo, 2006 64 ST water availability/discharge impact Two studies focus exclusively on water impacts on STs Results from van Vliet et al. study provide alternative sense of scale but are not transferrable Study Region Scenario Result

Harto and Yan, 2011 River Basin Drought Scenario Loss of total annual thermal generation (MWh) in basin Lower CO Basin 10th percentile drought 2% West-wide drought (1977) 5% 10th percentile drought 0% West-wide drought (1977) 2% Other WECC basins

All scenarios 0% Eastern U.S. Emissions Scenario Reduction in summer average thermal capacity by 2040 B1 SRES 12% (OTC), 4.4% (wet cooling) A2 SRES 16% (OTC), 5.9% (wet cooling) California van Vliet et al., 2012 65 Aggregate impacts Bartos and Chester study includes temperature/water impacts on GTs and STs, focus on capacity Jaglom et al. study focuses on temperature impacts on GT and ST capacity and heat rates Study

Region Scenario Result Bartos and Chester, 2015 WECC Emissions Scenario Incremental reduction in average summer capacity by 2040-2060 Range from B1-A1B-A2 SRES, annual average 1.4-3.5% (GTs) 1.6-3.0% (all thermal) B1-A1B-A2 SRES, 10-year average 4.9-7% (STs) RF scenario (RCPs) Reduction in dependable capacity, 2040

RF3.7 (3.7 W/m2 forcing by 2100, ~B1 SRES) 1.2% (GT) 0.4% (ST) REF (based on MIT EPPA reference case, ~A2 SRES) 1.6% (GT) 0.5% (ST) RF scenario (RCPs) Increase in average heat rate REF 0.2% (GTs) 0.4% (STs) Jaglom et al., 2014 U.S. 66 Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Do not include temperature-driven performance

impacts on GTs/STs De-rates likely on order of 1-2%, not likely to lead to significant changes in modeling results Heat rate increases likely < 1%, not likely to lead to significant changes in modeling results Do not include water availability-driven impacts on STs under average year climate change scenario Disagreement among studies regarding magnitude of potential de-rates under non-drought conditions Consider a drought scenario with 5% summer capacity de-rates for STs 67 Impact 3: Hydropower Focus on: Reductions in maximum capacity and monthly energy at hydro facilities Precipitation-driven impacts on annual and seasonal hydropower output Precipitation-driven impacts on hydropower capacity for generation adequacy Regions: Pacific Northwest, California,

Southwest 68 Changes in precipitation, temperature drive hydro impacts Changing precipitation patterns change runoff and streamflow, which impacts hydro generation In WI, changes in snowpack and timing of runoff particularly important Multi-year changes in precipitation (e.g., drought) have largest impact on hydro capacity and energy Rising temperatures also impact hydro generation Increased evaporative water losses, reduced river inflows Increased consumptive water use in upstream watersheds Regulatory limits on hydro generation to mitigate adverse ecological impacts of higher water temperatures 69 WI currently experiencing significant drought-related hydro de-rates Hoover dam significantly derated in summers,* though no reported impact on qualifying exports to California (CAISO, 2015) For California, 20% (1,511 MW) derates for hydro

qualifying capacity in PG&E and SCE territories in 2015 (CAISO, 2015) Figure: Hoover Dam Reservoir Levels, 1937-2014 * See, for instance, Rod Kuckro, Receding Lake Mead poses challenges to Hoover Dam's power output, EnergyWire, June 30, 2014, http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002129 70 Extensive work on climate change impacts on hydropower in WI Most policy and academic work focused on California and Pacific Northwest SECURE Water Act directs DOE to report to Congress on effects of climate change on federal hydropower, covers federal power marketing regions 71 Difficult to translate climate change

impacts to electricity system impacts GCMs vary widely in precipitation forecasts, both in magnitude and sign Studies typically couple climate and hydrological models, vary in extent to which realistic constraints on hydro operations considered Changes in annual precipitation and annual hydro generation may be misleading Small changes in total precipitation may mask larger changes in runoff; runoff explains most of the variability in annual hydro generation (DOE, 2013) Assumptions about reservoir operations have large impact on results for both capacity and energy 72 In SW, CA and AZ hydro most affected by existing drought California and Arizona annual hydro generation most impacted by 2011present drought conditions California 2014 conventional hydro output down ~50% relative to 1990-2010 average Figure: California Hydropower Output, 1990-2014, Annual and Rolling 5-year Average Figure: Arizona Hydropower Output, 1990-2014,

Annual and Rolling 5-year Average Arizona 2014 conventional hydro output down ~20% relative to 1990-2010 average Source: Data are from EIA, Detailed State Data, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/ state/ 73 Projected impacts in California depend on climate model Region Scope Climate modelemissions scenario Change in annual generation Timing of impact Source California

137 of 156 high altitude dams GFDL-A2 (dry) PCM-A2 (wet) Warming only (no change in precipitation) -20% +6% -1% No end year given Madani and Lund, 2009 Upper American River GFDL-A2 Project GFDL-B1 PCM-A2 PCM-B1 -13% -10% +14% +9% 2099

Vicuna et al., 2007 State Water Project Based on 12 scenarios from 6 general circulation models (-5%)-(-12%) (-15%)-(-16%) 2050 2099 Chung, 2009 (-4%)-(11%) (-12%)-(-13%) 2050 2099 2 C 4 C 6 C Fixed increase in temperature -5% -15% -20%

No end year given Central Valley Project Watersheds of the Consumnes, American, Bear, and Yuba (CABY) Rivers Mehta et al., 2011 74 In PNW, small change in annual masks larger seasonal changes Region Scope Climate modelemissions scenario Change in annual generation Timing of impact Source Pacific Northwest

Columbia River Basin Average of 20 general circulation models, B1 and A1B SRES Avg: (-0.8%)-(-3.4%) Winter: +1.0%-4.5% Summer: (-12.1%)-(-15.4%) Avg: (-2.0%)-(-3.4%) Winter: +4.7%-5.0% Summer: (-12.1)-(-15.4%) Avg: (-2.6%)-(-3.2%) Winter: +7.7%-10.9% Summer: (-17.1%)-(-20.8%) 2020s Hamlet et al., 2010 2040s 2080s Columbia River Basin 4 emissions scenarios, 4 climate models,

(-16%)-(+3%) (-30%)-(+2%) 2020s 2050s Markoff and Cullen, 2008 WECC All major river basins UKMO, ECHAM B1, A1, A1B SRES No significant change in annual generation 2045-2064 Bartos and Chester, 2015 Southwest Glen Canyon Dam A2 B1

+1.4% +-0.6% (declines in both scenarios in 2040-2069) 2010-2039 Christensen and Lettenmaier, 2007 75 Federal studies support similar conclusions Modest changes in annual generation over 20-year time horizon Summer runoff 25-30% lower in most of BPA region; seasonal differences in generation not modeled Supports narrative of declining snowpack earlier spring runoff reduced summer stream flows reduced summer hydro generation Table: Changes in Annual Hydro Generation in Federal Power Marketing Administration Areas

Median percent change relative to 1960-1999 baseline Region Near term (20102024) Mid term (20252039) -5% 0% WAPA +12% +4% SWPA -2% +1% SEPA +1% -1%

BPA Source: Sale and Kao, 2012 76 Recommended approach for EWCC scenario For Pacific Northwest, use 15% reduction in average summer generation (no capacity de-rate), scale winter generation so that annual generation does not change For average year, do not include changes in summer hydro capacity, annual generation for regions outside of Northwest No clear evidence to support changes in capacity or energy Consider drought scenario where annual hydro generation in Arizona is reduced by 20%, hydro qualifying capacity in California is reduced by 20%, and annual hydro generation in California is reduced by 50% Consistent with drought conditions in 2014 and 2015 77 Impact 4. Solar PV Focus on: Temperature-driven impacts on solar PV conversion efficiency, output

Reductions in the sunlight conversion efficiency, including possible impacts on inverters, of solar photovoltaic facilities Temperature-driven impact on inverter efficiency 78 Solar PV output and efficiency decrease at higher temperatures Solar PV output is weather sensitive Figure: Short-circuit Current and Open-Circuit Voltage at Higher (Red) and Lower (Blue) Ambient Temperatures Increases in cell temperature decrease open-circuit voltage (VOC), reduce available power and conversion efficiency* Inverters de-rate at higher panel temperatures to protect components, leads to lower AC output Changes in cloud cover may affect solar irradiance, lead to changes in output

(very uncertain) * More specifically, higher temperatures reduce band gap, increase carrier concentration and short circuit current (I SC); VOC is inversely related to ISC. Source and figure source: http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/solarcell-operation/effect-of-temperature 79 PV output impact Impact of temperature on PV output and conversion efficiency (temperature coefficient for power) is approximately linear Depends on PV material Generally in range of 0.2-0.5% decrease in rated output per 1C ambient temperature increase* * See, for instance, Skoplaki and Palyvos, 2009; IFC, 2015 Performance impact Output reduction /C

0.2-0.5% +2.6C T leads to 0.5-T leads to 0.51.3% decrease in max output For WI as a whole, Bartos and Chester (2015) estimate 0.71.7% decrease in PV capacity across B1-A2A1B SRES scenarios by 2040-2060 80 PV inverter efficiency impact Impact of extreme temperatures on inverter efficiency uncertain Figures: Inverter De-rates as a Function of Ambient Temperature Manufacturers report 2-3% decrease in efficiency per 1C ambient temperature, with different de-rate thresholds (see figures) At least one study shows similar derates at lower ambient temperatures (Chumpolrat et al., 2014) Beyond threshold, +2.6C T leads to 0.5-T leads to significant losses in AC output Leads to 5-8% decrease in inverter efficiency and AC output Unusual to see ambient temperatures above 50C in WI

Coincident impacts even less likely Figure source: http://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/how-does-temperature-affect-your-solar-inverter-power/ 81 Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Do not include solar PV de-rates to capacity in EWCC scenario De-rates due decreases in efficiency likely small, 1-2% De-rates due to inverter efficiency are system and location specific, actual performance difficult to assess 82 Impact category 5. Transmission system Focus: Increased line losses in electricity flow Temperature-driven impacts on different kinds of line losses Temperature-driven impacts on line capacity 83 Climate change may impact transmission in number of ways Higher temperature-driven loads drive higher

currents, higher line losses (I2R) Leads to higher generation capacity and energy needs Higher temperatures increase resistance (R) line losses Leads to higher generation capacity and energy needs Lines heat up at higher temperatures (resistive heating), leads to line sag May lead to lower line ratings Increased frequency of fires, storms may cause line outages May compromise local reliability 84 Temperature-driven impacts most important for resource planning Temperature impact on resistance losses likely small (Sayathe et al., 2012), though may impact operations (Bockarjova and Andersson, 2007) Resistive heating impacts on transmission system depend on multiple factors (e.g., conductor types, conductor clearance, approach to line ratings) Difficult to assess impacts for resource planning; requires more detailed analysis Largest impact due to load-driven line losses Should already be incorporated into loss factors 85

Recommended approach for EWCC scenario Ensure load forecasts incorporate loss factors that scale with loads Higher loads will lead to higher losses; changes in loss factors are more uncertain Do not include other transmission system impacts in EWCC scenario 86 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 Summary of recommended approach: Case 1 Case 1: average year Load Pacific Northwest Summer loads +10% Winter load -5% California and Southwest Summer loads +3% Great Plains No change Hydropower Pacific Northwest

Summer generation -15% Scale winter generation so that annual generation is unchanged 88 Summary of recommended approach: Case 2 Case 2: drought Case 1 PLUS Thermal generation Steam turbines 5% summer de-rate Hydropower Arizona 20% reduction in annual generation California 20% reduction in hydro qualifying capacity 50% reduction in annual generation 89 Conclusions Gap between climate projections and translating into terms that are usable for electricity industry Most important structural change related to climate change in WI is reduction in summer hydropower, increase in summer cooling demand in Pacific Northwest Focus on better understanding these changes through structured scenario analysis WECC could helpfully do more work on resiliency

planning Worst case drought and heat wave Need more systematic framework and potentially changes in modeling approach 90 Recommendations for further analytical work Two areas where further analysis would have greatest value: Load forecasting Comprehensive screen for WI, focused on temperature impacts Requires medium-term forecasts of cooling and heating degree days for region Analytical framework for testing electricity system resiliency to extreme events Scenario framework for assessing thresholds at which larger system changes occur Benefit-cost framework for assessing investments to enhance resiliency 91 REFERENCES 92 General Climate Modeling Cayan, Dan, Mary Tyree, David Pierce, and Tapash Das. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for California Vulnerability

and Adaptation Assessment. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission (CEC), 2012. Climate Impacts Group. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, 2009. Dalton, Meghan M., Philip W. Mote, and Amy K. Snover, eds. Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Washington: Island Press, 2013. van Vuuren, Detlef P., Jae Edmonds, Mikiko Kainuma, Keywan Riahi, Allison Thomson, Kathy Hibbard, George C. Hurtt, Tom Kram, Volker Krey, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Toshihiko Masui, Malte Meinshausen, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Steven J. Smith, and Steven K. Rose. The Representative Concentration Pathways: An Overview. Climatic Change 109, 2011: 5-31. 93 Load Aroonruengsawat, Anin and Maximilian Auffhammer. Impacts of Climate Change on Residential Electricity Consumption: Evidence from Billing Data. CEC-500-2009-018-D. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission (CEC), 2009. Auffhammer, Maximilian and Anin Aroonruengsawat. Hotspots of Climate-driven Increases in Residential Electricity Demand: A Simulation Exercise Based on Household Level Billing Data for California. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2012a. Auffhammer, Maximilian and Anin Aroonruengsawat. Impacts of Climate Change on San Francisco Bay Area Residential Electricity Consumption. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2012b. Franco, Guido and Alan Sanstad. Climate change and electricity demand in California. Climatic Change 87, 2008: 139-151. Hamlet, Alan F., Se-Yeun Lee, Kristian E.B. Mickelson, and Marketa M. Elsner. Effects of projected climate change on energy supply and demand in the Pacific Northwest and Washington State. Climatic Change 102, 2010: 103-128. Jaglom, Wendy S., James R. McFarland, Michelle F. Colley, Charlotte B. Mack, Boddu Venkatesh, Rawlings L. Miller, Juanita Haydel, Peter A. Schultz, Bill Perkins, Joseph H. Casola, Jeremy A. Martinich, Paul Cross, Michael J. Kolian, Serpil Kayin. Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate change on the U.S. electric power sector using the Integrated Planning Model. Energy Policy 73, 2014, 524-539. Linder, Kenneth P. and Mark R. Inglis. The Potential Effects of Climate Change on Regional and National Demands for Electricity. The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989.

Lu, N, ZT Talyor, W Jiang, Y Xie, J Correia, LYR Leung, PS Mackey, PC Wong, and ML Paget. Climate Change Impacts on Residential and Commercial Loads in the Western U.S. Grid. PNNL-17826. Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2008. Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014. Miller, Norman, Katharine Hayhoe, Jiming Jin, and Maximillian Auffhammer. Climate, Extreme Heat, and Electricity Demand in California. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 2012: 1834-1844. Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2010. Petri, Yana and Ken Caldeira. Impacts of Global Warming on Residential Heating and Cooling Degree-Days in the United States. Scientific Reports 5, 2015. Westerling, Anthony. Climate Forecasts for Improving Management of Energy and Hydropower Resources in the Western U.S. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2008. 94 Thermal generation Bartos, Matthew D. and Mikhail V. Chester. Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the Western United States. Nature Climate Change 5, 2015, 748-751. Department of Energy (DOE). U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather. Washginton, DC: DOE, 2013. Daycock,, C., Intergen R. Desjardins, and P.E.S Fennell. Generation cost forecasting using on-line thermodynamics models. EtaPRO Technical Paper, 2004. De Sa, Ashley and Sarim Al Zubaidy, Gas turbine performance at varying ambient temperature. Applied Thermal Engineering 31, 2011: 2735-2739. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Comparison of Alternate Cooling Technologies for U.S. Power Plants: Economic, Environmental, and Other Tradeoffs. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 2004. Harto, C.B. and Y.E. Yan. Analysis of Drought Impacts on Electricity Production in the Western and Texas Interconnections of the United States: In Support of Interconnection-wide Transmission Planning. ANL/EVS/R-11/14. Oak Ridge, TN: DOE, 2011. Jaglom, Wendy S., James R. McFarland, Michelle F. Colley, Charlotte B. Mack, Boddu Venkatesh, Rawlings L. Miller, Juanita Haydel, Peter A. Schultz, Bill Perkins, Joseph H. Casola, Jeremy A. Martinich, Paul Cross, Michael J. Kolian, Serpil Kayin. Assessment of projected temperature impacts from climate change on the U.S. electric power sector using the Integrated Planning Model. Energy

Policy 73, 2014, 524-539. Kakaras, E., A. Doukelis, A. Prelipceanu, and S. Karellas. Inlet Air Cooling Methods for Gas Turbine Based Power Plants. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 128, 2006: 312-317. Madden, Nadia, Aurana Lewis, and Michelle Davis. Thermal effluent from the power sector: an analysis of once-through cooling system impacts on surface water temperature. Environmental Research Letters 8, 2013, 1-8. Maulbetsch, John S. and Michael N. DiFilippo. Cost and Value of Water Use at Combined-Cyle Power Plants. CEC-500-2006-034. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2006. National Energy Technology Laboratory. An Analysis of the Effects of Drought Conditions on Electric Power Generation in the Western United States. DOE/NETL-2009/1365. Washington, DC: DOE, 2009. Sathaye, Jayant, Larry Dale, Peter Larsen, Gary Fitts, Kevin Koy, Sarah Lewis, and Andre Lucena. Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure from Projected Climate Change. CEC5002012057. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission (CEC), 2012. van Vliet, Michelle T. H., John R. Yearsley, Fulco Ludwig, Stefan Vgele, Dennis P. Lettenmaier, and Pavel Kabat. Vulnerability of US and European electricity supply to climate change. Nature Climate Change 2, 2012, 676-681. 95 Hydropower Bartos, Matthew D. and Mikhail V. Chester. Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the Western United States. Nature Climate Change 5, 2015, 748-751. California Independent System Operator (CAISO). 2015 Summer Loads and Resources Assessment. Folsom, CA: CAISO, 2015. Christensen, N. S. and D. P. Lettenmaier. A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11, 2007: 1417-1434. Chung, Francis, Jamie Anderson, Sushil Arora, Messele Ejeta, Jeff Galef, Tariq Kadir, Kevin Kao, Al Olson, Chris Quan, Erik Reyes, Maury Roos, Sanjaya Seneviratne, Jianzhong Wang, Hongbing Yin, and Nikki Blomquist. Using Future Climate Projections to Support Water Resources Decision-Making in California. CEC-500-2009-052-D. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission, 2009. Department of Energy (DOE). Effects of Climate Change on Federal Hydropower: Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: DOE, 2013. Hamlet, Alan F., Se-Yeun Lee, Kristian E.B. Mickelson, and Marketa M. Elsner. Effects of projected climate change on energy supply and demand in the Pacific Northwest and Washington State. Climatic Change 102, 2010: 103-128. Harto, C.B. and Y.E. Yan. Analysis of Drought Impacts on Electricity Production in the Western and Texas Interconnections of the United States: In Support of Interconnection-wide Transmission Planning. ANL/EVS/R-11/14. Oak Ridge, TN: DOE, 2011. Kahrl, Fredrich and David Roland-Holst. Climate Change in California: Risk and Response. Berkeley, University of California Press: 2012.

Madani, Kevin and Jay R. Lund. Estimated impacts of climate warming on Californias high-elevation hydropower. Climatic Change 102, 2010: 521-538. Markoff, Matthew S. and Allison Cullen. Impact of climate change on Pacific Northwest hydropower. Climatic Change 87, 2008: 451469. Mehta, Vishal, David E. Rheinheimer, David Yates, David R. Purkey, Joshua H. Viers, Charles A. Young, and Jeffrey R. Mount . Potential impacts on hydrology and hydropower production under climate warming of the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Water and Climate Change 2, 2011: 29-43. Vicua, Sebastian, John A. Dracup, and Larry Dale. Climate change impacts on two high-elevation hydropower systems in California. Climatic Change 109, 2011: 151-169. Sale, Michael J. and Shih-Chieh Kao. Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Federal Hydropower: An Assessment Prepared in Response to Section 9505(c) of the SECURE Water Act of 2009. ORNL/TM-2011/251. Oak Ridge, TN: DOE, 2012. Vicua, Sebastian, Rebecca Leonardson, Michael W. Hanemann, Larry L. Dale, and John A. Dracup. limate change impacts on high elevation hydropower generation in Californias Sierra Nevada: a case study in the Upper American River. Climatic Change 87, 2008: S123-137. Westerling, Anthony. Climate Forecasts for Improving Management of Energy and Hydropower Resources in the Western U.S. Sacramento, CA: CEC, 2008. 96 Solar PV and Transmission System Solar PV Chumpolrat, Kamonpan, Vichit Sangsuwan, Nuttakarn Udomdachanut, Songkiate Kittisontirak, Sasiwimon Songtrai, Perawut Chinnavornrungsee, Amornrat Limmanee, Jaran Sritharathikhun, and Kobsak Sriprapha. Effect of Ambient Temperature on Performance of Grid-Connected Inverter Installed in Thailand. International Journal of Photoenergy 2014, 2014: 1-6. International Finance Corporation (IFC). Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants: A Project Developers Guide. Washington, D.C.: IFC, 2015. Skoplaki, E. and J.A. Palyvos. On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module electrical performance: A review of efficiency/power correlations. Solar Energy 83, 2009: 614-624. Transmission System

Marija Bockarjova and Goran Andersson. Transmission Line Conductor Temperature Impact on State Estimation Accuracy. 2007 IEEE Lausanne Power Tech, 2007: 701-706. Sathaye, Jayant, Larry Dale, Peter Larsen, Gary Fitts, Kevin Koy, Sarah Lewis, and Andre Lucena. Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure from Projected Climate Change. CEC5002012057. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission (CEC), 2012. 97

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Chapter 7

    Chapter 7

    Chapter 7 Multilevel Security What can everyone learn from military and government application security Military Huge amount of money spent on research for Computer Science Products developed will find themselves in commercial applications Commercial systems use multilevel security Multilevel systems...
  • The Christian Roman Empire & the Rise of

    The Christian Roman Empire & the Rise of

    Development of Just War Tradition A. Criteria for Just War or Use of Force (Jus ad bellum) Criteria for Just War or Use of Force (Jus ad bellum) Legitimate authority Just cause Right intention Reasonable hope of success War as...
  • An Empirical Investigation of Learning from the Semantic Web

    An Empirical Investigation of Learning from the Semantic Web

    An Empirical Investigation of Learning from the Semantic Web Pete Edwards Gunnar AAstrand Grimnes Alun Preece Computing Science Department University of Aberdeen {pedwards,ggrimnes,apreece}@csd.abdn.ac.uk Semantic Web Mining Workshop @ ECML 2002
  •  TIP: Use only this front page for simple

    TIP: Use only this front page for simple

    Opportunity or problem this idea will address & rationale. ... to track project performance, the best business cases define and monitor leading indicators to allow time for mid-course correction and improve project benefit realisation. ... Identify key stakeholders inside and...
  • UFO: Verification with Interpolants and Abstract Interpretation Arie

    UFO: Verification with Interpolants and Abstract Interpretation Arie

    UFO Front End. In principle simple, but in practice very messy. CIL passes to normalize the code (library functions, uninitialized vars, etc.) llvm-gcc(without optimization) to compile C to LLVM bitcode
  • EEE 302 Lecture 9 - holbert.faculty.asu.edu

    EEE 302 Lecture 9 - holbert.faculty.asu.edu

    Three-Phase Circuits In three-phase circuits the 3 voltages sources are 120° apart Polyphase generation and transmission of electricity is more advantageous and economical (1) three-phase instantaneous power is constant over time (2) single-phase line losses are 50% greater than three-phase...
  • Do&#x27;s &amp; dont&#x27;s

    Do's & dont's

    My profile. This is where you can update your forum display name if you wish to use an alias. My Inbox. This is where emails sent to you by forum members are stored. My Topics. This is where you can...
  • ASGE Endoscopic Audiovisual Award Guide DO NOT EMBED

    ASGE Endoscopic Audiovisual Award Guide DO NOT EMBED

    Brief outline of video content Video Narrative Guide Video submission are to be between 20 to 60 minutes in total length using the structure as a guide in your video narrative.