ORNL/TM-2018/869

CRADA/NFE-17-06776

An Assessment of Energy Potential at

Public Drinking Water Systems: Initial
Report on Methodology

Shih-Chieh Kao
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Kurt Johnson
Telluride Energy

July 2018

Publicly accessible version without Protected CRADA Information

 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via US Department of Energy
(DOE) SciTech Connect.

Website www.osti.gov

Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the
following source:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847)
TDD 703-487-4639
Fax 703-605-6900
E-mail info@ntis.gov
Website http://classic.ntis.gov/

Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange
representatives, and International Nuclear Information System representatives from the following
source:

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

PO Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Telephone 865-576-8401
Fax 865-576-5728
E-mail reports@osti.gov
Website http://www.osti.gov/contact.html

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes
any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that
its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to
any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute
or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.

Front Cover Image: Photo courtesy of Canyon Hydro

 ORNL/TM-2018/869
CRADA/NFE-17-06776

Environmental Sciences Division

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY POTENTIAL AT PUBLIC DRINKING

WATER SYSTEMS: INITIAL REPORT ON METHODOLOGY

Shih-Chieh Kao
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Kurt Johnson
Telluride Energy

Prepared for the Water Power Technologies Office,

US Department of Energy

Date Published: July 2018

Prepared by
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6283
managed by
UT-BATTELLE, LLC
for the
US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iv
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND INITIALISMS .......................................................................... v
LIST OF VARIABLES............................................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT............................................................................................................................ viii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................. ix
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 CURRENT STATE OF CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ................................ 1
1.3 PRIOR CONDUIT HYDROPOWER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT EFFORTS AND
CURRENT GAPS ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY .......................................................................... 4
2. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 DATA SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 PWS CONDUIT HYDROPOWER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL ............................. 8
2.2.1 Power and Energy Estimates ......................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Net Hydraulic Head Estimates ....................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Flow Estimates ............................................................................................................. 10
2.2.4 Assessment Procedure ................................................................................................. 11
3. PILOT STUDY ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 14
3.2.1 Flow ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.2 Net Hydraulic Head ..................................................................................................... 15
3.2.3 Power and Energy ........................................................................................................ 16
3.3 MODEL SENSITIVITY ........................................................................................................... 16
4. SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................... 18
4.1 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................. 18
4.3 AVAILABILITY OF THE RESULTS ..................................................................................... 20
4.4 NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................... 20
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 21

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. FERC-approved qualifying conduits by state and project type (as of June 2018)......................... 2
Figure 2. An example of multiple data sets collected in this study............................................................... 6
Figure 3. Summary of assessment procedure.............................................................................................. 11
Figure 4. Histogram of PWS treatment capacity of (a) Oregon, and (b) Colorado. ................................... 14
Figure 5. Histogram of (a) part 1 and (b) part 2 net hydraulic head of Oregon PWSs. .............................. 15
Figure 6. Histogram of (a) part 1 and (b) part 2 net hydraulic head of Colorado PWSs. ........................... 15
Figure 7. Histogram of potential conduit capacity of (a) Oregon and (b) Colorado. .................................. 16
Figure 8. Histogram of potential conduit energy of (a) Oregon and (b) Colorado. .................................... 16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of data sources ................................................................................................................ 7

Table 2. Permitted PWS conduit hydropower projects through HREA in Oregon and Colorado .............. 12
Table 3. Exempted conduit hydropower projects (before HREA) in Oregon and Colorado ...................... 13
Table 4. Summary of model sensitivity ...................................................................................................... 17
Table 5. Summary of main assumptions and limitations of this study ....................................................... 19

iv
 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND INITIALISMS

CDA Colorado Department of Agriculture

CDP census-designated place
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Census US Census Bureau
CEO Colorado Energy Office
DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
EHA Existing Hydropower Asset
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FRS Facility Registry Service
HDPE high-density polyethylene
HREA Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act
MAF Master Address File
MTDB Master Address File and Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing Database
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NDA nondisclosure agreement
NED National Elevation Dataset
NHAAP National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program
NHD+ National Hydrography Dataset Plus
NPD non-powered dam
NRC National Research Council
NSD new stream-reach development
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
POTW publicly owned (wastewater) treatment work
PRV pressure-reducing valve
PWS public water system
QA/QC quality assurance and quality control
Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard

v
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing Dataset
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USGS US Geological Survey

vi
 LIST OF VARIABLES

𝐶𝑓 Capacity factor
𝐷 Conduit diameter (ft)
𝐸 Hydroelectric energy (watt * hour)
𝑓 Friction factor
𝑔 Gravitational constant
GW Gigawatt (109 watt)
kW Kilowatt (103 watt)
kWh Kilowatt–hour (103 watt * hour)
𝐻𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓 The elevation difference (ft) between upstream and downstream locations
𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 Net hydraulic head (ft)
ℎ𝐿 Total head loss (ft)
ℎ𝑓 Frictional head loss (ft)
𝐿 Conduit length (ft)
MW Megawatt (106 watt)
MWh Megawatt–hour (106 watt * hour)
𝑃 Hydroelectric power (watt)
𝑅𝑒 Reynolds number
𝑆 Total service population
𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆 Water treatment plant capacity (ft3/s)
𝑞𝑃𝑊𝑆 Domestic, publicly supplied per capita water use (ft3/s/person)
𝑄𝑡𝑢𝑟 Turbine flow (ft3/s)
𝑇 Total annual hydropower plant operation time (hours)
𝑉 Average conduit velocity (ft/s)
𝑍𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 The elevation (ft) at the downstream location
𝑍𝑢𝑝 The elevation (ft) at the upstream location
𝜀 Roughness height (ft)
𝜂 Generating efficiency
𝜌 Water density (slug/ft3)
𝛾 Specific weight of water (N/m3)
𝜇 Dynamic viscosity (lb s/ft2)

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This report was sponsored by the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Small Business Vouchers Program
and Water Power Technologies Office. The authors would like to acknowledge and express their
appreciation to the following individuals and programs for their support, review, and comment of this
report. The listing of reviewers here does not imply their agreement with all findings of the report. Any
remaining errors in this report are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Department of Energy
• Timothy Welch
• Corey Vezina
• Nathaniel Sloan
Environmental Protection Agency
• Towana Dorsey
• Alex Porteous
• Renee Morris
US Geological Survey
• Molly Maupin
Colorado State Government
• John M. Duggan
• Meg Parish
• Samantha Reifer
California State Government
• Bob Brownwood
• Kim Niemeyer
• Betsy Lichti
• Wendy Killou
Industrial Reviewers and Commenters
• Asad Choudry, Xylem Inc.
• Daniel Langlois, GE Renewable Energy
• Eric Melander, Canyon Hydro
• Justin Ong, ClearPath
• Dan Parker, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy
• Ryan Rickly, Rickly Hydrological Co.
• Paul W. Roos, AMJET Turbine Systems LLC
• Bruce Sellars, Mavel Americas
• Doug Spaulding, Nelson Energy
• Darren Wager, Gilkes Hydro
• Frank Zammataro, Rentricity Inc.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Michael Johnson
• Nicole M. Samu
• Adam M. Witt
• Deborah M. Counce
• Brennan Smith

viii
 ABSTRACT

The hydroelectricity potential from man-made water conduits (e.g., pipelines, aqueducts, irrigation
ditches and water conveyance canals) across municipal, agricultural, and industrial sectors has been
estimated as being relatively small but having high development feasibility. Given the various benefits of
conduit hydropower—e.g., no need for new construction of dams or impoundments, minimal
environmental concerns, reduced development risks, eligibility for net-metering in most states, and
probable qualification for the expedited 60 day regulatory approval process through the Hydropower
Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013—conduit hydropower development may be the most economically
feasible type of new hydropower development for the near future. While individually these projects may
seem small, collectively, they may provide stable energy output and help offset local energy demands for
water system operators.

However, mainly because of data limitations, the total conduit hydropower potential across states and/or
regions has not been comprehensively quantified. Recognizing the knowledge gaps and challenges in
each conduit hydropower sector, sector-specific approaches that are best suited for the current state of
data availability and understanding are required. To support the Department of Energy and the broader
hydropower community in estimating the national conduit hydropower potential for further policy and
program planning, focusing on municipal conduit hydropower as the starting point, a geospatial conduit
resource assessment method designed for national public water systems (PWSs) is introduced in this
study. Multiple public and non-public data sets, including PWS information, water intake locations, water
treatment plant locations, city boundaries, digital elevations, historic water use, and existing conduit
hydropower development, were collected for the states of Oregon and Colorado for the proof-of-concept
assessment. The analysis introduced herein represents the first step in getting a systematic understanding
of national conduit hydropower potential across various states/regions and eventually across multiple
sectors (i.e., municipal, agricultural, and industrial). PWS projects examined in this study will be
developed mainly through installation of hydropower generation in parallel to existing pressure-reducing
valves to recover the otherwise wasted energy.

Following the proposed methodology and assumptions, conduit hydropower potentials using surface
water with a positive gravitational net head were identified in 89 PWSs in Oregon and 63 PWSs in
Colorado. In terms of the total population, these PWSs serve 1.92 million of 4.14 million people in
Oregon, and 2.86 of 5.61 million people in Colorado. A total 12,380 kW of potential conduit hydropower
capacity was estimated in Oregon and 33,990 kW in Colorado. Their corresponding annual
hydroelectricity energy supply is estimated to be 65,068 MWh/year in Oregon and 202,475 MWh/year in
Colorado. In Oregon, the most conduit hydropower potential was identified in the western parts of the
state. In Colorado, the highest conduit hydropower potential was identified in the western and central
parts of the state. These potentials jointly reflect the amount of water supply (highly related to population)
as well as suitable topography to provide sufficient net hydraulic head for hydropower generation.
Additional conduit hydropower opportunities for use of the excess hydraulic head from pumping may
exist but are not evaluated in this study due to data limitations. We expect to gradually expand the
assessment to other states or regions to enable a comprehensive understanding of the national PWS
conduit hydropower potential and the inter-regional differences.

ix
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Among various undeveloped hydropower resources classified by the US Department of Energy (DOE),
the hydroelectricity potential from man-made water conduits (e.g., pipelines, aqueducts, irrigation ditches
and water conveyance canals) has been estimated as being relatively small but as having the highest
development feasibility (DOE, 2016). This type of small hydropower development does not require the
construction of new dams or impoundments; involves minimum environmental concerns; entails reduced
development risks; is eligible for net-metering in most states, yields high value for the energy generated;
and is likely to qualify for an expedited 60-day regulatory approval process through the qualifying
conduit approval process created by the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act (HREA) of 2013. Based
on the features of conduits, conduit hydropower development can be further classified into three main
sectors (Johnson et al., 2018):

• Municipal conduit hydropower mainly refers to generating facilities located at pressurized pipelines
used for drinking water supply in public water systems (PWSs). This type of small hydropower
project is installed in parallel to existing pressure-reducing valves (PRVs) with hydropower
generators that use excess pressure (originally reduced by PRVs) for hydropower generation and
energy recovery. Municipal conduit hydropower also covers publicly owned wastewater treatment
works (POTW) conduits that are mostly gravitationally fed.

• Agricultural conduit hydropower mainly refers to generating facilities at drop locations (i.e.,
locations with a sudden channel bottom elevation change) within open water ditches and canals that
are primarily used for irrigation. This type of small hydropower project typically uses the
gravitational hydraulic heads at existing drop sites for hydropower generation. A relatively smaller
portion of agricultural conduit hydropower is located at pressurized pipelines within irrigation
systems. Although agricultural conduit hydropower has seasonal variation, given the much larger
flow (compared with PWS), the hydropower capacity of canal conduit projects is usually larger than
that of PWS projects.

• Industrial conduit hydropower refers to generating facilities located at industrial pipelines. Although
the industrial sector (including industrial, mining, aquaculture and thermoelectric) has the largest
water withdrawals, the conduit hydropower opportunities associated with industrial conduits are the
least understood. Based on a review of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) qualifying
conduit application data, thus far there is little industrial sector development of conduit hydropower—
notwithstanding the fact that industrial developments are likely to be particularly efficient and cost-
effective insofar as they are typically eligible for onsite net-metering.

Nevertheless, despite the high development feasibility, the amount of total conduit hydropower resources
and their spatial distribution across the country are not clearly known. The lack of understanding hinders
the active development of the conduit hydropower market. To support policy planning and to guide future
research and investment decisions, a comprehensive national conduit resource assessment is needed to
quantify the magnitude of potential conduit hydropower resources.

1.2 CURRENT STATE OF CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT

Many small conduit projects (<40 MW) already qualify for exemption from the licensing requirements of
Part I of the Federal Power Act and can follow a simpler (compared with the full license) FERC
exemption application process. This FERC regulatory process was further reduced by the HREA of 2013.

1
Qualifying conduit projects can secure FERC approval per HREA within 60 days provided that they (1)
are less than 5 MW, (2) use a non–federally owned conduit, (3) serve a primary purpose other than
hydropower generation, and (4) are not currently licensed or exempted. Between the passage of HREA in
August 2013 and June of 2018, 97 projects nationwide with a total of almost 33 MW in capacity received
“qualifying conduit” determination from FERC. They are mostly clustered in Western states and are split
roughly evenly between municipal and agricultural projects (Figure 1). These projects are as large as the
4.8 MW U Canal Hydro #2 Project by the North Side Canal Company Ltd. in Idaho (FERC Docket
CD14-1) and as small as the 1.7 kW Adak Water System in the city of Adak, Alaska (FERC Docket
CD15-25).

FERC-Approved Qualifying Conduits By FERC-Approved Qualifying Conduits by

State Project Type
30 60

Number of Projects
20 40

10 20

0 0
VT
OR

WY

PA
CO

ID

IL
UT

MA

MT
CT
NH
NM

AK

AZ
CA

Municipal Agricultural Industrial

Figure 1. FERC-approved qualifying conduits by state and project type (as of June 2018).

This rate of project development is slower than originally expected. Given that PRVs are commonly used
in almost every PWS (as well as in industrial pipelines), a number of municipal and industrial water users
should have sites suitable for HREA development. One barrier can be the limited awareness among water
utilities of 2013 federal reforms. Hydropower development, particularly the regulatory process, is still
viewed by some as high-risk and time consuming, so water utilities and industrial users may not have
sufficient motivation and incentive to explore it. A federally supported, nationwide conduit resource
assessment could be a good motivator. The prior non-powered dam (NPD; Hadjerioua et al., 2012) and
new stream-reach development (NSD; Kao et al., 2014) resource assessments have promoted wide public
awareness of potential undeveloped hydropower resources. An analogous study focusing on the national
conduit resource is likely to have a similar effect, helping to spur awareness and project development.

1.3 PRIOR CONDUIT HYDROPOWER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT EFFORTS AND

CURRENT GAPS

As noted in the Hydropower Vision report (DOE, 2016), there has been no nationwide resource
assessment focusing on potential hydroelectricity capacity and energy available through powering
existing conduits. Although several states have conducted their own conduit resource assessments, those
studies were based on different approaches and assumptions and examined only a subset of conduits. A
report prepared for the California Energy Commission (Kane et al., 2006) suggested that there were
approximately 255 MW of Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)–eligible small hydropower projects in
California (i.e., also likely HREA-feasible) that could be developed in man-made conduits. This resource
estimate was based on survey data from 43 large and medium-size water purveyors (water agencies and
irrigation districts) that collectively accounted for about 65% of the total annual water entitlements in
California. To develop an understanding of the conditions, barriers, and opportunities related to the small
hydropower market in Oregon, Summit Blue Consulting (2009) surveyed a sample of water rights holders
with estimated annual water allocations greater than 10,000 acre-ft within the Portland General Electric
and PacifiCorp service territories. While challenges related to small hydro development were

2
comprehensively discussed, the study did not offer a state-level estimate of the potential small
hydropower resources. For Massachusetts, Allen and Fay (2013) and Allen et al. (2013) evaluated the in-
conduit energy potentials for PWS and POTW facilities using both survey data and publicly available
information. Under low- and high-head assumptions (required owing to a lack of site-specific data), they
suggested that there could be around 4,300–39,500 MWh/year of hydroelectric energy in PWS systems
and 600–3000 MWh/year in POTW systems in Massachusetts. The Colorado Energy Office (CEO, 2016)
conducted a conduit hydropower resource assessment focusing on existing PRVs within water utility
delivery systems. Based on available information collected through its online PRV geodatabase, and
using other assumptions, CEO estimated that there is 20–25 MW of hydropower potential in replacing
PRVs statewide. The Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA, 2013) completed an agricultural
hydropower assessment that estimated 30 MW of untapped potential using pressurized irrigation. In
addition, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, 2012) conducted a hydropower resource assessment
focusing on Reclamation-owned canals and showed approximately 268 MW and 1.2 million MWh/year
of potential resources. Overall, based on the existing studies and data (presented above and Sale et al.,
2014), DOE (2016) made a ballpark estimate that there could be around 2 GW of total conduit
hydropower potential across the country. However, an in-depth national conduit resource assessment has
not yet been conducted.

Overall, multiple challenges associated with conduit hydropower resource assessment have been reported
in previous studies. They include the following:

• Data availability: As indicated in multiple previous studies, data availability is one of the primary
challenges and uncertainties for conduit resource assessment. Whereas the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) National Inventory of Dams serves as a good foundation for an NPD
hydropower resource assessment, there has not been a national or regional conduit database to
provide necessary baseline information for hydropower resource evaluation. This data issue is further
complicated by the different conduit setting in each sector.

o Municipal: For municipal conduits, the locations, pressure differences, and pipeline capacities
(e.g., gallons/day) of existing pipelines are the most desired information. Alternatively, the total
elevation differences, types of material, and pipeline diameters could be used to estimate the
possible head loss and the total available head of a closed conduit. However, although each water
utility is fully aware of the status of its own water treatment system and the locations of existing
PRVs, such information has not been comprehensively collected into a regional or even national
database. Furthermore, given infrastructure safety concerns, most PWS information is
confidential and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act of 1967. To overcome this data
barrier, federal government (e.g., DOE) support and coordination is needed.

o Agricultural: Although there are fewer infrastructure concerns associated with agricultural
conduits, canal drop sites are usually known only to the irrigation districts and have not been
comprehensively documented across the country. Furthermore, although public geospatial data
sets such as the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHD+) contain nearly 174,000 miles of
artificial pathways and 177,000 miles of canal ditches, the data sets are not always up to date; and
there are pathways and ditches that reportedly are not contained in the data set. Getting an
estimate of canal flow is even more challenging, since most canals are not gauged. Canal flow
also cannot be simulated through conventional rainfall-runoff models. A systematic approach to
identifying possible canal resources is desired.

o Industrial: Although the industrial sector (particularly thermoelectric; Maupin et al., 2014) has
the largest total water utilization, the understanding of conduit hydropower potential in the
industrial sector is minimal. While the total water utilization and discharge may be approximated

3
 from some federal or state databases, there has been no good way to reasonably assume or
approximate possible hydraulic head opportunities for the purpose of conduit hydropower
resource evaluation. Furthermore, types of conduits are expected to vary across industries (e.g.,
thermoelectric versus mining), adding further complexity to data collection.

• Limitation of survey: While targeted surveys remain the most viable approach when data are
extremely limited (Kane et al., 2006; CEO, 2016), such an approach is time and resource consuming
and always suffers from lower response rates than are desirable. For example, CEO (2016)
encouraged water utilities to participate in the development of a statewide database of PRVs.
Although this initiative was well-perceived and received positive responses from participating
utilities, only a fraction of water systems provided their system information. Unless a large,
representative sample is collected during the process, a survey-based approach will inevitably involve
larger uncertainty.

• Inconsistent methodology: The current small hydropower resource assessments conducted in each
state have been based on different data types and methodologies. While they all have been developed
based on the unique legal and market features in each state, it is challenging to incorporate the
findings into a common regional or national platform. For the purpose of inter-regional resource
comparison, a spatially consistent resource evaluation method is needed.

Recognizing the current gaps and challenges in each sector, sector-specific approaches that are best suited
for the current state of data availability and understanding for each sector are required. The methodology
developed in this study presents one first step toward the quantification of conduit hydropower potential
within the municipal sector. We expect that this proposed methodology may contribute to and eventually
help lead to the first quantitative estimate of total US conduit hydropower potential.

1.4 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY

To support DOE and the broader hydropower industry in quantifying the total hydropower potential from
conduits, this study introduces a generalized conduit hydropower resource assessment method focusing
on public drinking water systems within the municipal sector. The assessment method is designed at the
reconnaissance level (RETScreen International, 2005), considering technical resources that could be
available for development (NRC, 2013) at the state and national scales using present-day assumptions
about conduit hydropower technology. Given the higher priority of estimating state/national total resource
potentials, the assessment method will not emphasize deriving site-specific generation and cost estimates
that are sufficiently accurate for direct use to support project-specific feasibility assessment or to justify
investments. Instead, the assessment will use a spatially consistent approach to systematically analyze the
conduit potentials across different states to allow further inter-regional resource comparison and enable a
national assessment in a spatially consistent manner.

The assessment leverages the best available data acquired through federal and state drinking water
regulatory agencies. Two states with readily available drinking water system information, Oregon and
Colorado, are included in this pilot study. At each state, the potential conduit hydropower resources
associated with each PWS (with available information) are estimated without revealing sensitive PWS
information at any site. The initial findings and experience gained through this pilot study are summarized
in this report to support a future DOE national conduit hydropower resource assessment across multiple
sectors. In addition to helping the hydropower industry quantify the magnitude of potential HREA-eligible
conduit hydropower resources, the capacity and energy estimates can be used by national energy
deployment models such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Regional Energy Deployment
System and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System to improve
projections of future hydropower growth.

4
 2. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

2.1 DATA SOURCES

To quantify the conduit hydropower potential associated with each PWS, detailed conduit characteristics
including PRV location, conduit length, slope, diameter, material, pressure, and discharge are desired.
Nevertheless, although such information is known to each PWS owner and utility, there is no
comprehensive data set available at state and national scales to support overall resource evaluation. To
estimate the conduit hydropower potential associated with national PWSs, alternative data sets and
necessary simplifications are needed. After consulting with state drinking water agencies, the US
Geological Survey (USGS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the availability
and limitations of PWS-related data, multiple national/state data sets were selected in this study
(summarized in Table 1). While most of these data sets are publicly available, one most critical type of
information, PWS water intake location, is protected information in most states. A nondisclosure
agreement (NDA) is required to access such information.

• Public Water System Information

The baseline US PWS information can be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS). SDWIS tracks information on drinking water contamination levels as required by
the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and its 1986 and 1996 amendments. Under SDWA, each
state supervises its PWSs to ensure that each system meets state and EPA standards for safe drinking
water. Information such as the PWS characteristics (e.g., system name, identification number,
city/county served, number of people served, system type), violations, and enforcement records are
reported regularly to EPA. For this assessment, the PWS service population is the main information
that was obtained from SDWIS.

• Water Intake Location

The water intake location is one key piece of information for the estimation of conduit hydropower
potential in PWS. However, given infrastructure safety concerns, such in-depth PWS information can
usually be shared only with another agency for governmental use only. For the purpose of this initial
assessment, an NDA has been established between the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to exchange and protect such
data. Similar data usage agreements with the California State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and EPA have been put in place in preparation for the expanded national assessment in the
future. Oregon is among the states with publicly available drinking water source area information.
Using the polygons of surface water drinking water source areas released by the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ), we identified the PWS water intake locations from further
geospatial analysis. An example is shown in Figure 2.

• Water Treatment Plant Location

Public water treatment plant locations are looked up from the EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS)
Facility Interests Dataset. The EPA FRS identifies and geospatially locates facilities, sites, or places
subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. The FRS Facility Interests Dataset
provides integrated location and facility identification information for all facilities that are available
in the FRS individual feature layers. It comprises the FRS major program databases including
SDWIS, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Integrated Compliance Information
System, and others. An example of water treatment plant locations is shown in Figure 2.

5
 Water Intake Locations
Derived from Oregon DEQ
Source Water Areas

City Boundary from

US Census Bureau
TIGER Dataset

Water Treatment Plant

Location from FRS Facility
Interests Dataset

Figure 2. An example of multiple data sets collected in this study.

• City Boundary
Since there is no comprehensive, state/national geospatial data set of PWS service areas, we used the
US Census Bureau Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)
city/place geospatial data set as a proxy in this study. The TIGER shapefiles and related database files
are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the US Census Bureau’s
Master Address File and Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing
(MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The TIGER shapefiles include both incorporated places (legal
entities) and census-designated places (CDPs; statistical entities). An incorporated place usually is a
city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the
decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. The boundaries for CDPs often
are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible
features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. Although the
TIGER boundary data set is different from the actual PWS service area, it should capture the majority
of the population within a community, which can help us understand the main destination of the
PWS. In this assessment, we overlapped city boundaries with digital elevations to estimate the
average elevation of a city. An example is shown in Figure 2.

• Digital Elevation
To look up the elevation at water intakes, water treatment plants, and the destination cities, we used
the 1/3 arc-second (~10 m) resolution USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED; Gesch et al., 2002) in
this study. The NED is the primary elevation data product of the USGS that is derived from diverse
data sources and processed to a common coordinate system and unit of vertical measure. All elevation
values are in meters and, over the conterminous United States, are referenced to the North American

6
 Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The overall root mean square error of the absolute vertical
accuracy of NED is reported to be around 2.44 meters (Maune, 2007). The NED data set was also
used in other national hydropower resource assessments (e.g., Kao et al., 2014).

• Historic Water Use

To estimate conduit hydropower potential, the water treatment plant capacity (i.e., gallons/day) is
another necessary piece of information. Nevertheless, although there is no obvious sensitivity or
concern regarding the treatment plant capacity information, such data have not been collected
regularly and comprehensively by EPA (or perhaps by many states). To estimate the historic water
use of each PWS, we used the domestic, publicly supplied per capita use from the 2010 USGS water
use assessment (Maupin et al., 2014) as an alternative. The series of 5 year USGS assessments
reported average daily withdrawals (in gallons per day) by source (groundwater and surface water)
and quality (fresh and saline) for each county and state. Withdrawals are classified by category of use:
public supply, domestic (including self-supplied domestic and deliveries from public supply),
irrigation, livestock, aquaculture, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power. Based on the county
that a PWS mainly serves, we looked up the per capita water supply information from the USGS
water use assessment and multiplied it by the PWS service population to approximate the water
treatment plant capacity. During future national assessments and discussions with each state, if it is
determined that more detailed water treatment plant information (e.g., monthly or seasonal) can be
made available, the per capita–based water use approximation can be replaced to increase the
accuracy of the assessment.

Table 1. Summary of data sources

Data type Data source Reference / website
Public water system • EPA Safe Drinking Water • https://www.epa.gov/enviro/sdwis-overview
information Information System (SDWIS)
Water intake location • Colorado Department of Public • Protected information in most states
Health and Environment (CDPHE)
• Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Water treatment plant • EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS) • https://www.epa.gov/enviro/geospatial-data-
location Facility Interests Dataset download-service
City boundary • US Census Bureau Topologically • https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-
Integrated Geographic Encoding and data/data/tiger.html
Referencing (TIGER) Dataset
Digital elevation • USGS National Elevation Dataset • https://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html
(NED)
Historic water use • USGS National Water-Use Science • https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/
Project
Existing hydropower • ORNL NHAAP Existing • https://nhaap.ornl.gov/existing_hydropower
asset Hydropower Asset (EHA) Dataset _assets

• Existing Hydropower Assets

Existing hydropower development information was obtained from the ORNL National Hydropower
Asset Assessment Program (NHAAP) Existing Hydropower Asset (EHA; Samu et al., 2018) data set.
NHAAP is an integrated hydropower information platform maintained by ORNL for the DOE Water
Power Technologies Office. Hydropower plant characteristics such as capacity, number of turbines,

7
 turbine types, modes of operation, permit number, plant owner/operator, and historic generation are
regularly incorporated from multiple agencies, including EIA, FERC, USACE, Reclamation, and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. We studied the characteristics of PWS conduit hydropower projects
permitted in each state either before or after the enactment of HREA to understand the features of
developed conduit projects and to summarize some project characteristics (e.g., historic generation
and capacity factor) to use in our proposed resource assessment model.

2.2 PWS CONDUIT HYDROPOWER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT MODEL

To estimate the total hydropower potential in a region, three key pieces of information will be required:
(1) available sites, (2) distribution of net hydraulic head 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 (ft), and (3) distribution of turbine flow
𝑄𝑡𝑢𝑟 (ft3/s). With the data limitations in mind, our biggest challenge will be to estimate these three
required parameters based on the best-available data. The detailed methods and procedures are discussed
in this section.

2.2.1 Power and Energy Estimates

Consistent with previous hydropower resource assessments (Kao et al., 2014; Reclamation, 2011; DOI,
2007), the following equations are used to estimate the potential hydroelectric power 𝑃 (watt) and energy
𝐸 (watt * hour) that may be produced with net hydraulic head 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 (ft) and turbine flow 𝑄𝑡𝑢𝑟 (ft3/s) at
each site:

𝑃 = 𝑐 ∗ 𝛾 ∗ 𝜂 ∗ 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 ∗ 𝑄𝑡𝑢𝑟 . (1)

𝐸 =𝑃∗𝑇. (2)

In Eqs. (1) and (2), 𝜂 is the generating efficiency, 𝛾 = 9800 N/m3 is the specific weight of water, 𝑐 =
(0.3048)4 is the unit conversion factor, and 𝑇 is the total amount of time (hours) for which a conduit
hydropower plant is operated (annually or seasonally). For the purpose of hydropower resource
assessment, the future hydropower turbine is usually considered to be designed around the optimal
operating point; therefore, 𝜂 can be reasonably assumed to be a constant 0.85 (e.g., USACE, 1983).
However, given that the sizes of conduit projects are generally smaller, this 0.85 efficiency may not be
easily achieved. This assumption of efficiency will be further examined in future assessment by
identifying a most representative value from commonly-used conduit hydropower turbines.

Another important variable that can help to characterize a hydropower plant is capacity factor (𝐶𝑓 ). It can
be defined as
𝐸 𝑇
𝐶𝑓 = 𝑃∗365∗24 = 365∗24 . (3)

In general, the value of capacity factor 𝐶𝑓 varies depending on the nature and economics of the project
(e.g., peaking vs. conduit). For instance, many irrigation systems only operate seasonally (from April to
October), so their 𝐶𝑓 can be 50 to 60% at best. To be consistent with previously proposed conduit
projects, we summarized the historic generation and capacity factors from NHAAP EHA to inform the
assumptions of our methods.

2.2.2 Net Hydraulic Head Estimates

For open water conduits, the net hydraulic head 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 is usually estimated by the elevation differences
between upstream and downstream locations (i.e., 𝐻𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓 = 𝑍𝑢𝑝 − 𝑍𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 ). However, if the flow is
transported through a long, pressurized conduit, an adjustment of head loss ℎ𝐿 is needed:

8
 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝐻𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓 − ℎ𝐿 . (4)

The total head loss ℎ𝐿 can be further divided into two components: (1) major (frictional) head loss ℎ𝑓 due
to viscous effects in the pipes, and (2) minor head loss occurring in various pipe components. For a
straight pipe with conduit length 𝐿 (ft), the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Morris and Wiggert, 1972) is
generally used to estimate ℎ𝑓 :

𝐿 𝑉2
ℎ𝑓 = 𝑓 ∗ 𝐷 ∗ 2𝑔 , (5)

where 𝑓 is the friction factor, 𝐷 is the conduit diameter (ft), 𝑉 is the average velocity (ft/s) within the
conduit, and 𝑔 = 32.2 ft/s2 is the gravitational constant. The friction factor can be looked up from the
Moody diagram (Morris and Wiggert, 1972) or solved by the following Colebrook formula:

1 𝜀 ⁄𝐷 2.51
= −2 ∗ 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( 3.7 + ), (6)
√𝑓 𝑅𝑒√𝑓
𝜌𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 = , (7)
𝜇

where 𝜀 is the roughness height (ft) determined by the conduit material, 𝑅𝑒 is the Reynolds number, 𝜌 =
1.94 slug/ft3 is the water density, and 𝜇 = 2.34 10-5 lbs/ft2 is the dynamic viscosity.

Clearly, without the full details for existing conduits (i.e., size, material, spatial distribution), the above
equations cannot be solved. To overcome this data limitation, we made the following simplifications and
assumptions for the purpose of conduit hydropower resource evaluation:

• Gravitational head only (i.e., no pumping): This assessment focused only on the gravitational head
potential, i.e., analyzing the elevation difference and head loss from PWS source to destination,
without evaluating the additional head potential generated by pumping. This simplification is needed
mainly because of data limitations. Nevertheless, it should be noted that some existing conduit
hydropower developments utilize the excess head generated from pumping for energy recovery.
Examples include the 32.7MW Mojave Siphon project within the California Aqueduct (P-14580), as
well as other inter-basin water transit projects. Therefore, in reality, there could be further conduit
hydropower potential for a PWS even with very little or negative gravitational head, as reported in
this study.

• 2-part analysis: Based on the available geographical location data collected from multiple sources, a
2-part analysis is suggested. It includes the following:

o Part 1—untreated water: The first part of the analysis focuses on the net hydraulic head from
water intake (data from state drinking water agencies) to water treatment plant (data from EPA
FRS). We calculated the direct distance from intake to treatment plant as 𝐿, looked up the
elevations of these locations from NED, and used the information in Eqs. (1) – (7) to calculate
𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 .

o Part 2—treated water: The second part of the analysis focuses on the net hydraulic head from
the water treatment plant to the main service city/county (data from TIGER). We calculated the
direct distance from water treatment plant to city center as 𝐿, overlapped the polygon of the city
with NED to calculate the average elevation of the city, and used the information in Eqs. (1) – (7)
to calculate 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 .

9
• Conduit material: We assumed the conduit material to be commonly used commercial steel with
roughness 𝜀 = 0.00015 ft.

• Conduit velocity: After reviewing some previous HREA applications with available average conduit
flows and velocity information (e.g., 1.6–2.5 ft/s in CD13-6 Bear Creek Hydroelectric Project), we
selected the mean annual conduit flow velocity 𝑉 = 2 ft/s in this study. With the assumed conduit
velocity and PWS flow information (derived from USGS water use information discussed in the
following section), we were able to calculate the corresponding conduit cross-section area, diameter,
and friction factor, as well as frictional head loss from Eqs. (1) – (7).

• Total head loss: Without the actual distribution of all conduits, the actual conduit length as well as all
possible minor losses are not known. To avoid significantly underestimating the total head loss, we
propose to use the following equation to approximate head loss:

ℎ𝐿 = 2 ∗ ℎ𝑓 . (8)

In other words, we are using another straight-line frictional loss to account for all possible minor
losses, as well as the true non-straight length of the conduit.

With this approach, one main factor controlling head loss will be 𝐿 in Eq. (5). If the distance between
intake and treatment plant is very small, the head loss term will be close to zero; and hence the net
hydraulic head will decay to the simple elevation difference between upstream and downstream locations
(i.e., 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝐻𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓 ). The effect of head loss will become more significant with increasing 𝐿. During the
future expanded national assessment, we will communicate with stakeholders across different
states/regions, gather their feedback on these assumptions, and revise this assumption based on more
detailed local information on conduits.

2.2.3 Flow Estimates

As stated in Section 2.1, given the lack of actual data for water treatment plant capacity 𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆 (ft3/s), we
used Eq. (9) to approximate 𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆 :

𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆 = 𝑆 ∗ 𝑞𝑃𝑊𝑆 , (9)

where 𝑆 is the total service population from SDWIS and 𝑞𝑃𝑊𝑆 (ft3/s/person) is the county-based domestic,
publicly supplied per capita water use information from the USGS water use assessment (with unit
conversion from gallon/day to ft3/s). We selected 𝑞𝑃𝑊𝑆 from the same county in which each PWS was
located. Here, 𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆 represents the mean annual total water treatment plant capacity. Seasonal, monthly,
weekly, and/or diurnal variability can be expected.

The next questions are how much of the flow can be used for conduit hydropower generation, as well as
how to determine 𝑄𝑡𝑢𝑟 from 𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆 . Given that our intention is to understand the maximum potential of a
PWS, we assume that all PWS flow can be passed through the conduit hydropower turbine. Considering
that PWS conduit hydropower projects are developed by placing conduit hydropower turbines in parallel
with an existing PRV, without constructing further bypassing structures, this assumption can be
considered reasonable. With this assumption, the relationship between 𝑄𝑡𝑢𝑟 and 𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆 becomes
𝑄𝑃𝑊𝑆
𝑄𝑡𝑢𝑟 = 𝑛∗𝐶𝑓
, (10)

10
where 𝑛 represents the number of total intakes (with available information from state/EPA) of a PWS, or
the number of targeted service areas (from the TIGER data set). To be consistent with previously
proposed conduit projects in the same state or region, we looked up 𝐶𝑓 from existing PWS conduit
hydropower projects from NHAAP EHA. The results are shown and further discussed in Section 3.1.

2.2.4 Assessment Procedure

The overall assessment procedure is illustrated in Figure 3. We conducted this assessment for all PWSs
with available data (in particular, intake and water treatment locations). We also conducted further quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) checks to remove PWSs with obviously erroneous intake
locations (e.g., the intake to treatment plant connection spans across a long distance and across other
PWSs). All results are summarized and discussed in Section 3.

Figure 3. Summary of assessment procedure.

11
 3. PILOT STUDY

3.1 STUDY AREA

To test and demonstrate the applicability of the proposed methodology, we conducted a pilot study for the
states of Oregon and Colorado. The main consideration in selecting these two states is data availability (in
particular, water intake locations). As discussed in Section 2.1, Oregon is among the states with publicly
available drinking water source area information. For each water intake location, DEQ delineated the
watershed boundary above the water intake into geospatial polygons. We overlapped the DEQ source area
polygons with NED and identified locations with the lowest elevations to be water intakes in this
assessment. For the state of Colorado, we were able to establish an NDA between CDPHE and ORNL
within the pilot study timeframe to secure the protected water intake information. While we originally
planned to include California in this pilot study, the NDA negotiation took longer than expected and
hence did not leave sufficient time for assessment. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that similar data
agreements with the California SWRCB and directly with EPA are now in place. These established NDAs
will help to expedite the national assessment in the future.

For Oregon and Colorado, we started by reviewing PWS conduit hydropower projects that were permitted
either after or before the enactment of HREA (Table 2 and Table 3). The information summarized in
Table 2 and Table 3 is mostly pre-development final license information collected from the FERC
eLibrary. If a project has been built and is reporting to EIA, the information from EIA Forms 860 and 923
is then used (see Samu et al., 2018 for further information). Overall, 4 Oregon (118 kW, 615 MWh/year,
average 𝐶𝑓 = 60%) and 16 Colorado PWS projects (1005 kW, 5975 MWh/year, average 𝐶𝑓 = 68%)
acquired HREA exemptions from FERC. Given the nature of HREA, these HREA conduit projects are
generally smaller than the earlier conduit projects exempted through the conventional FERC process (6
projects in Oregon with 839 kW, 3719 MWh/year, average 𝐶𝑓 = 51% and 19 projects in Colorado with
34565 kW, 96183 MWh/year, average 𝐶𝑓 = 32%). Another main difference between the projects before or
after HREA is the sizes of utilities and projects. In both states, the conduit projects permitted before
HREA are mostly larger projects developed by large water utilities (e.g., City and County of Denver, City
of Boulder, Portland Water Bureau), whereas medium- to small-size utilities seem to pursue smaller
projects through HREA.

Based on the results from Table 2, we selected 𝐶𝑓 = 60% for Oregon and 𝐶𝑓 = 68% for Colorado in the
following assessment. Note that given the design of the proposed methodology, the maximum total
energy potential will be fixed no matter which 𝐶𝑓 is used. A smaller 𝐶𝑓 will lead to a large total capacity
value (and vice versa).

Table 2. Permitted PWS conduit hydropower projects through HREA in Oregon and Colorado
Estimated Estimated
FERC Capacity annual net capacity
State Project name Exemptee
docket # (kW)a generation factor
(MWh/yr)a (%)
Wallowa Lake County Service Wallowa Resources
Oregon CD17-16 20 149 85
District Hydro Station Community Solutions Inc.
Rock Creek Water Treatment
Oregon CD14-19 City of Corvallis 28 219 89
Plant Hydropower Project
Bear Creek Watershed
Oregon CD13-6 City of Astoria 60 175 33
Hydroelectric Project

12
 Oregon CD13-5 Corbett Hydroelectric Project Corbett Water District 10 72 82
Total 118 615 60
Colorado CD17-15 NTM Water Treatment Plant North Table Mountain Water
150 250 19.0
Hydro Project and Sanitation Dist.
Colorado CD17-11 Gypsum Hydroelectric Town of Gypsum 85 650 87
Colorado CD17-8 Nettle Creek WTP Town of Carbondale 28 190 78
Colorado CD17-5 Alma WTP Hydro Project Town of Alma 25 200 91
Colorado CD17-4 SCWTP Hydro Project City of Louisville 34 196 66
Colorado CD17-3 Louisville Recreation City of Louisville 13 78 69
Colorado CD17-2 Louisville HBWTP City of Louisville 33 196 68
Colorado CD16-11 SCMWD Treatment Plant St. Charles Mesa Water 40 40 11
Colorado CD15-34 Manitou Springs WTP City of Manitou Springs 40 250 71
Colorado CD15-31 Grand Lake WTP Town of Grand Lake 20 150 86
Colorado CD15-27 Double Cabins PRV Mountain Village 5 10 23
Colorado CD15-26 San Joaquin PRV Mountain Village 15 15 11
Colorado CD15-18 Soldier Canyon Soldier Canyon Filter Plant 100 875 99
Colorado CD14-20 Fort Collins Micro Hydro City of Fort Collins 75 550 84
Colorado CD14-5 Pandora Water System Town of Telluride 320 2135 76
Colorado CD14-2 Orchard City WTP Orchard City 22 190 99
Total 1005 5975 68
a
Capacity and estimated net generation values are summarized from FERC elibrary material. WTP = water treatment plant, SCTWP = Sid
Copeland WTP; HBWTP = Howard Berry WTP

Table 3. Exempted conduit hydropower projects (before HREA) in Oregon and Colorado
Net annual Capacity
FERC Capacity
State Project name Exemptee generation factor
docket # (kW)a
(MWh/yr)a (%)
Oregon P-14498 Conduit 3 Portland Water Bureau 200 1200 69
Oregon P-14440 Energy Recovery Phase II City of Pendleton 239 1012 48
Oregon P-14407 Energy Recovery Phase I City of Pendleton 161 697 49
Will Crandall Reservoir & Pump
Oregon P-14371 City of Hillsboro 94 60 7
Station
Oregon P-13732 Vernon Station Portland Water Bureau 25 206 94
Tualatin Valley Water
Oregon P-7058 Wolf Creek 120 545 52
District
Total 839 3719 51
Colorado P-14326 Basalt Hydroelectric Project Town of Basalt 40 300 86
Colorado P-13357 Project 7 Project 7 Water Authority 152 600 45
Colorado P-13322 Cortez Micro Hydro City of Cortez 240 1400 67
Colorado P-12841 Plateau Creek Ute Water Conservancy 610 2400 45
Colorado P-12624 Cascade Generating Project Colorado Springs Utilities 900 5114 65
Colorado P-11531 Silver Lake Hydro City of Boulder 2750 10951 45
Colorado P-10973 Hillcrest City & County of Denver 2000 4611 26
Colorado P-10947 Longmont City of Longmont 600 4340 83
Colorado P-9922 Lakewood Hydro City of Boulder 1500 8699 66
Colorado P-9903 Orodell Powerhouse City of Boulder 255 1160 52
Colorado P-9545 Hotchkiss Powerhouse Town of Hotchkiss 60 -- --
Colorado P-9087 Sunshine Powerhouse City of Boulder 800 3100 44

13
 Colorado P-8962 Kohler Powerhouse City of Boulder 150 770 59
Colorado P-7564 Maxwell Powerhouse City of Boulder 68 520 87
Colorado P-6282 Betasso Hydro Plant City of Boulder 3100 8340 31
Colorado P-5771 Foothills Hydro Plant City & County of Denver 3100 4734 17
Colorado P-3496 North Fork Hydro Plant City & County of Denver 5500 6832 14
Colorado P-1005 Boulder Canyon Hydro City of Boulder 5000 15569 37
Colorado P-768 Ruxton Park–Manitou Springs City of Colorado Springs 7200 16345 26
Total 34565 96183 32
a
Capacity and net generation values are summarized from FERC elibrary material and EIA Forms 860 and 923 data sets. Net generation obtained
from FERC elibrary is estimated value, while net generation from EIA is historic observation. See Samu et al. (2018) for further information.

3.2 FINDINGS

Following the proposed methodology and assumptions, we analyzed conduit hydropower potential for all
PWSs using surface water with available information. Overall, we identified conduit hydropower
potential from 89 PWSs in Oregon (i.e., with positive gravitational net head 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 > 0). These PWSs
service a total of 1.92 million people (out of the total 4.14 million Oregon population; Census, 2018). In
Colorado, we identified conduit hydropower potential from 63 PWSs in Colorado. These PWSs service a
total of 2.86 million people (out of the total 5.61 million Colorado population; Census, 2018). As noted in
Section 2, since we can analyze only the gravitational net head given the data limitation, there could be
some additional conduit hydropower potential due to the excess net head generated during pumping that
may be used for energy recovery.

3.2.1 Flow

A summary of the estimated treatment capacity of these analyzed PWSs is shown in Figure 4. The
distribution of treatment capacity is highly skewed and concentrated on a few major PWS. The USGS
domestic per capita public water supply varies largely across these PWS, from 54 to 222
gallons/day/person in Oregon and from 33 to 245 gallons/day/person in Colorado. Note that these average
PWS treatment capacities were estimated from the service population and per capita data, not the actual
treatment capacity information (which is unavailable at the national scale). Using more accurate and
refined (e.g., seasonal or monthly) water treatment capacity information will help improve the accuracy of
the assessment.

Figure 4. Histogram of PWS treatment capacity of (a) Oregon, and (b) Colorado.

14
3.2.2 Net Hydraulic Head

The estimated net hydraulic heads 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 of each PWS (with available information) in Oregon and
Colorado are summarized in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The first part of 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 analyzed the net hydraulic head
from location of intake to location of water treatment plant, and the second part of 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 analyzed the
average net hydraulic head from location of water treatment plant to the entire city.

Overall, the topographic differences between Oregon and Colorado can be clearly seen. The average parts
1 and 2 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 are 172 and 149 ft in Oregon (Figure 5) and 448 and 364 ft in Colorado (Figure 6). The
higher hydraulic head in Colorado is consistent with the fact that more conduit hydropower projects were
pursued in Colorado (than Oregon). The higher 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 would suggest the likely existence of PRVs that are
needed to ensure a workable pressure within the entire water transit system.

Figure 5. Histogram of (a) part 1 and (b) part 2 net hydraulic head of Oregon PWSs.

Figure 6. Histogram of (a) part 1 and (b) part 2 net hydraulic head of Colorado PWSs.
Note also that this part of the analysis involves the largest uncertainty within this assessment. Although
our data sources provided the best available water intake and treatment plant locational information
(among all other sources), nonetheless, the locational information is not available for all PWSs. In
addition, it was noticed that some of the locational information might be inaccurate (e.g., water intake is
several counties away from the corresponding treatment plant) and had to be excluded during the QA/QC
process. However, given the sensitive nature of water intake information (i.e., per the terms of the NDA),
it is challenging for us to conduct extensive cross-validation or solicit support from entities. With the
continual improvement of the national PWS locational information, we expect that the accuracy of 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡
can be enhanced in the future.

15
3.2.3 Power and Energy

Using both flow and head information, we estimated the potential conduit capacity 𝑃 (kW) and energy 𝐸
(MWh) for all PWSs (with available information) in Oregon and Colorado. The summary histograms are
shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Overall, the total potential conduit capacity (including parts1 and 2) is
12,380 kW in Oregon and 33,990 kW in Colorado. The total potential annual hydroelectricity energy is
65,068 MWh/year in Oregon and 202,475 MWh/year in Colorado.

The distribution was again highly skewed (mainly because of the larger water treatment capacity in some
utilities). Despite the fact that the total potential is concentrated in some larger water utilities (as expected), it is
encouraging to see that conduit hydropower potential also exists in many mid-size to small utilities. Given the
reduced and expedited regulatory process through HREA (as the resulting reduced development cost), these
mid-size to small utilities can now also enjoy the potential benefits from conduit hydropower development.

Figure 7. Histogram of potential conduit capacity of (a) Oregon and (b) Colorado.

Figure 8. Histogram of potential conduit energy of (a) Oregon and (b) Colorado.
In Oregon, most potentials were identified in the western parts of the state (mostly following the distribution of
population). In Colorado, the top conduit hydropower potentials were identified in the western and central
parts of the state, in which the topography has a more significant influence.

3.3 MODEL SENSITIVITY

To understand the sensitivity of some assumptions made during the assessment (that we can quantify), we
conducted a further model sensitivity analysis, which is discussed in this section. Specifically, we focused
on the assumptions for conduit material/roughness, conduit velocity, and total head loss calculation. The
results are reported in Table 4.

16
Our default scenario S1 assumed a conduit roughness 𝜀 = 0.00015 ft (commercial steel) and velocity 𝑉 =
2 ft/s. Those assumptions led to the finding of 12,380 kW conduit hydropower capacity in Oregon and
33,991 kW capacity in Colorado. In scenario S2, we tested the sensitivity of 𝜀 by using 𝜀 = 0 ft in S2a
(e.g., high-density polyethylene [HDPE] pipe) and 𝜀 = 0.0003 ft in S2b. The results showed that the effect
is in fact very limited (less than 1% change). Therefore, the specific material assumed in the assessment
had little effect on sensitivity. A larger sensitivity was found in the assumption of velocity. In scenario
S3, we used 𝑉 = 1 ft/s in S3a and 𝑉 = 3 ft/s in S3b. Those assumptions resulted in a 5.6 to –10.5% change
of capacity in Oregon and a 3.7 to −7.4% change of capacity in Colorado. Given that velocity is a square
term in the equation for head loss (Eq. [5]), this larger sensitivity can be expected. In scenario S4, we
examined the total head loss ℎ𝐿 assumption, which is approximated by 2 times the frictional head loss ℎ𝑓
in the default S1 scenario (Eq. [8]). A factor of 1.5 was tested in S4a and 2.5 in S4b, and it resulted in a
1.7 to −1.6% change of capacity in Oregon and a 1.1 to −1.1% change of capacity in Colorado. Overall,
the highest sensitivity was found for the assumption of velocity, followed by velocity and then roughness.
In practice, the choices of conduit, size, velocity, and other conduit features are all site-specific decisions
that can hardly be generalized. The assumptions and simplifications made herein are necessary to help
form a regionally consistent assessment framework that can later allow comparison of the potential
conduit hydropower resources across different states and regions.

Table 4. Summary of model sensitivity

Roughness Velocity 𝑽 Total head Oregon Colorado

Scenario
𝜺 (ft) (ft/s) loss 𝒉𝑳 (ft) Capacity (kW) Capacity (kW)
S1
0.00015 2 2 * ℎ𝑓 12380 33991
(default)
S2a 0 2 2 * ℎ𝑓 12422 (0.3%) 34072 (0.2%)
S2b 0.0003 2 2 * ℎ𝑓 12343 (−0.3%) 33920 (−0.2%)
S3a 0.00015 1 2 * ℎ𝑓 13075 (5.6%) 35252 (3.7%)
S3b 0.00015 3 2 * ℎ𝑓 11078 (−10.5%) 31481 (−7.4%)

S4a 0.00015 2 1.5 * ℎ𝑓 12588 (1.7%) 34375 (1.1%)

S4b 0.00015 2 2.5 * ℎ𝑓 12176 (−1.6%) 33610 (−1.1%)

17
 4. SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

4.1 SUMMARY

The hydroelectricity potential from man-made water conduits (e.g., pipelines, aqueducts, irrigation
ditches, and water conveyance canals) across municipal, agricultural, and industrial sectors has been
estimated as being relatively small but having high development feasibility. However, mainly because of
data limitations, the total conduit hydropower potential across states and/or regions has not been
comprehensively quantified. Recognizing the knowledge gaps and challenges in each conduit hydropower
sector, sector-specific approaches that are best suited for the current state of data availability and
understanding are required. To support DOE and the broader hydropower community in estimating the
national conduit hydropower potential for further policy planning, focusing on municipal conduit
hydropower as the starting point, a geospatial conduit resource assessment method designed for national
PWSs is introduced in this study. Multiple public and non-public data sets—including PWS information,
water intake location, water treatment plant location, city boundary, digital elevation, historic water use,
and existing conduit hydropower development—were collected for the states of Oregon and Colorado for
the proof-of-concept assessment. The analysis introduced herein represents the first step in obtaining a
systematic understanding of national conduit hydropower potential across various states/regions and
eventually across multiple sectors (i.e., municipal, agricultural, and industrial).

Following the proposed methodology and assumptions, conduit hydropower potentials (with positive
gravitational net head 𝐻𝑛𝑒𝑡 > 0) were identified in 89 PWSs in Oregon and 63 PWSs in Colorado. In
terms of the total population, these PWSs serve 1.92 million out of 4.14 million people in Oregon and
2.86 out of 5.61 million people in Colorado (Census, 2018). A total of 12,380 kW of potential conduit
hydropower capacity was estimated in Oregon and 33,990 kW in Colorado. The corresponding annual
hydroelectricity energy potentials are estimated to be 65,068 MWh/year in Oregon and 202,475
MWh/year in Colorado. In Oregon, the highest conduit hydropower potentials were identified in the
western parts of the state. In Colorado, the highest conduit hydropower potentials were identified in the
western and central parts of the state. These potentials jointly reflect the amount of water supply (highly
related to population) as well as suitable topography to provide sufficient net hydraulic head for
hydropower generation. Additional conduit hydropower opportunities that use the excess hydraulic head
during pumping may exist but were not evaluated in this study because of data limitations.

Given the multiple benefits of conduit hydropower—such as the lack of need for new construction of
dams or impoundments, minimum environmental concerns, reduced development risks, eligibility for net-
metering in most states, and likely qualification for an expedited 60-day regulatory approval process
through the HREA of 2013—conduit hydropower may be the most economically feasible type of new
hydropower development for the near future. PWS projects examined in this study will mostly be
developed through installing hydropower in parallel to existing PRVs to recover the otherwise wasted
energy. While individually these projects may seem small, collectively, they may provide stable energy
output and help offset local energy demands for water system operators, for whom energy costs are
typically a substantial portion of operational costs.

4.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Given the data limitations (from either availability or sensitivity perspectives), as well as the main
objective of this study (i.e., to inform state/national total conduit hydropower resource estimates), this
study makes multiple assumptions and simplifications. These assumptions are summarized in Table 5.

18
 Table 5. Summary of main assumptions and limitations of this study
Main assumption/
Description
limitation
Reconnaissance-level Given the higher priority of estimating state/national total resource potentials, the
assessment proposed method was designed at the reconnaissance level, considering the total
technical resources that could be available for development at the state and national
scales. Therefore, while the findings may inform as to regions with relatively higher
potential, project-specific feasibility assessment is still required to identify actual
conduit hydropower sites for development
Gravitational head only Given the data limitations, this assessment focuses only on gravitational head potential
(i.e., no pumping) without considering the additional excess head generated during pumping. While this is
a necessary simplification, it also may lead to underestimation of the full conduit
hydropower potential (e.g., opportunities located at the inter-basin water transit
conduits)
Surface water only In the current assessment, we focus only on surface water–source PWSs, since they
have a higher magnitude of flow and are the main control to the total conduit
hydropower resource estimate. However, although it is relatively smaller, conduit
hydropower potential exists at PWSs that use groundwater as the main source. Some
HREA exemptions were in fact issued to groundwater-based PWS
Conduit material We assumed the conduit material to be the commonly used commercial steel with
roughness of ε = 0.00015 ft. The sensitivity analysis (Section 3.3) suggested a lower
sensitivity for this assumption.
Conduit velocity After reviewing some previous HREA applications with available average conduit flow
and velocity information, we selected a mean annual conduit flow velocity V = 2 ft/s in
this study. With the assumed conduit velocity and PWS flow information, the
corresponding conduit cross-section area, diameter, friction factor, and frictional head
loss were further calculated
Total head loss Without the actual distribution of all conduits, the actual conduit length as well as all
possible minor losses are not known. To avoid significantly underestimating the total
head loss, we propose to use two times the frictional head loss (calculated from a
straight distance) to account for all possible minor losses, as well as the non-straight
length of the conduit
PWS treatment capacity Given the lack of data for actual water treatment plant capacity at the national scale, we
used the PWS service population (from SDWIS) and county-based domestic, publicly
supplied per capita water use information (from USGS) to approximate the mean
annual water treatment capacity of a PWS
Flow availability To understand the full PWS conduit hydropower potential, we assumed that all PWS
flow can be used for generation without possible flow bypass. This is a similar
assumption to those used in prior national hydropower resource assessments (e.g., NPD
and NSD).
Capacity factor Based on the proposed HREA project characteristics, we selected 𝐶𝑓 = 60% in Oregon
and 𝐶𝑓 = 68% for Colorado in the assessment
Generating efficiency Following NPD and NSD studies, a consistent 𝜂 = 0.85 is used. However, we
recognize that this may not be the most representative value for some commonly used
conduit hydropower turbines. This assumption will be further reviewed and modified
in the future assessment.

19
4.3 AVAILABILITY OF THE RESULTS

Given that parts of the input data are sensitive infrastructure information that were acquired through an
NDA, the supporting PWS-level information cannot be publicly distributed. It will be used by DOE and
other agencies to support development of further policy and investment strategies for the acceleration of
national conduit hydropower development. The underlying data sets will continue to expand to support
national-scale assessment, with an assumption that data, once released, will be summarized at the county
level for public dissemination.

4.4 NEXT STEPS

Recognizing the different conduit settings in each sector (e.g., type, material, pressurized or open water,
annual or seasonal operation, data availability), we think a sector-specific assessment approach will be
needed to comprehensively evaluate the total conduit hydropower resources across the country. The
methodology introduced in this study represents a very first step in quantifying the conduit hydropower
potentials associated with PWS in the municipal sector. Given that most of the required input data are
available at the national scale, the assessment can be gradually expanded to other states or regions to
enable a comprehensive understanding of the national PWS conduit hydropower potential and the inter-
regional differences.

Further efforts are needed to design the best assessment strategy for quantifying the conduit hydropower
resources in other sectors (i.e., agricultural and industrial), as well as to evaluate other missing
opportunities in the municipal sector (e.g., POTWs). During the discussion and interaction with other
state drinking water agencies and PWS owners, we also hope to gather their feedback and use the more
accurate PWS conduit information to enhance the accuracy of this assessment. These issues are to be
explored in the future assessment.

20
 5. REFERENCES

Allen, G. S., and C. N. Fay (2013), In-Conduit Hydropower Project—Phase II Report, submitted to
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, ALDEN Research Laboratory Inc., Holden, MA.
Allen, G. S., C. N. Fay, and E. Matys (2013), In-Conduit Hydropower Project—Phase I Report,
submitted to Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, ALDEN Research Laboratory Inc., Holden, MA.
CDA (Colorado Department of Agriculture) (2013), Recommendations for Developing Agricultural
Hydropower in Colorado, prepared by Applegate Group Inc. and Telluride Energy.
Census (US Census Bureau) (2018), State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010–2017,
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/state-total.html, accessed May 12, 2018.
CEO (Colorado Energy Office) (2016), Colorado PRV-Hydropower Assessment, prepared by Amec
Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure Inc., Denver, CO.
DOE (Department of Energy) (2016), Hydropower Vision—A New Chapter for America’s 1st Renewable
Electricity Source, Department of Energy, Washington DC.
DOI (Department of Interior) (2007), Potential Hydroelectric Development at Existing Federal Facilities,
for Section 1834 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Gesch, D., M. Oimoen, S. Greenlee, C. Nelson, M. Steuck, and D. Tyler (2002), The National Elevation
Dataset, Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 68(1), 5–11.
Hadjerioua, B., Y. Wei and S.-C. Kao (2012), An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-powered Dams
in the United States, GPO DOE/EE-0711, Wind and Water Power Program, Department of Energy,
Washington DC.
Johnson, K., A. Levine, and T. Curtis (2018), Energy Recovery Hydropower: Prospects for Off-Setting
Electricity Costs for Agricultural, Municipal, and Industrial Water Providers and Users. July 2017-
September 2017, NREL/TP-6A20-70483, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
Kane, M., E. Sison-Lebrilla, M. Krebs, and B. B. Blevins (2006), Statewide Small Hydropower Resource
Assessment, prepared for California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program,
Navigant Consulting Inc., Sacramento, CA.
Kao, S.-C., R. A. McManamay, K. M. Stewart, N. M. Samu, B. Hadjerioua, S. T. DeNeale, D. Yeasmin,
M. F. K. Pasha, A. A. Oubeidillah, and B. T. Smith (2014), New Stream-reach Development: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Hydropower Energy Potential in the United States, GPO DOE/EE-
1063, Wind and Water Power Program, Department of Energy, Washington DC.
Maune, D. F. (2007), Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM Users Manual,
2nd edition, Asprs Publication.
Maupin, M .A., J. F. Kenny, S. S. Hutson, J. K. Lovelace, N. L. Barber, and K. S. Linsey (2014),
Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010, US Geological Survey Circular 1405, 56 p.,
doi:10.3133/cir1405.
Morris, M. H. and J. M. Wiggert (1972), Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, Second Edition, Ronald
Press, New York.
NRC (National Research Council) (2013), An Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Marine and
Hydrokinetic Resource Assessments, The National Academies Press, Washington DC.

21
Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation) (2011), Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation
Facilities, Denver, CO, March.
Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation) (2012), Site Inventory and Hydropower Energy Assessment of
Reclamation Owned Conduits, Bureau of Reclamation Power Resources Office, Denver, CO.
RETScreen International (2005), Clean Energy Project Analysis: RETScreen Engineering & Cases
Textbook, 3rd Edition, Ministry of Natural Resources Canada.
Sale, M., N. Bishop, S. Reiser, K. Johnson, A. Bailey, A. Frank, and B. Smith (2014), Opportunities for
Energy Development in Water Conduits: A Report Prepared in Response to Section 7 of the
Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, ORNL/TM-2014/272, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Samu, N. M., S.-C. Kao, P. W. O’Connor, M. M. Johnson, and R. Uría Martínez (2018), National
Hydropower Plant Dataset, Version 1, Update FY18Q1, Existing Hydropower Assets [series], Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, http://nhaap.ornl.gov, doi:10.21951/1326801.
Summit Blue Consulting (2009), Small Hydropower Technology and Market Assessment, submitted to
Energy Trust of Oregon, Summit Blue Consulting, LLC, Boulder, CO.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) (1983), National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study, Report
No. IWR-82-H-1, Washington, D.C.

22