Engineering Papers⌕ Search
Home/Archive/DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI · 1764637

U.S. Hydropower Market Report

Uria-Martinez, Rocio·Johnson, Megan M.·Shan, Rui·Samu, Nicole M.·Oladosu, Gbadebo·Werble, Joseph M.·Battey, Hoyt
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The January 2021 edition of the U.S. Hydropower Market Report is the third complete edition of this report (the first two were the 2014 and 2017 Hydropower Market Report published in 2015 and 2018, respectively). In intervening years between publishing the full report, updated data are also summarized and released, and can be found at the Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) HydroSource website. This report combines data from public and commercial sources, as well as research findings from other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) R&D projects to provide a comprehensive picture of developments in the U.S. hydropower and pumped-storage hydropower fleet and industry trends. The report highlights developments in 2017–2019 (the years for which new data has become available since the publication of the 2017 Hydropower Market Report), and contextualizes this information compared to evolving high-level trends over the past 10–20 years. Apart from presenting trends over time, the report discusses differences in those trends by region, plant size, owner type, or other attributes.

Explore related subjects

13 HYDRO ENERGYhydropowerwater

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Uria-Martinez, Rocio, Johnson, Megan M., Shan, Rui, Samu, Nicole M., Oladosu, Gbadebo, Werble, Joseph M., Battey, Hoyt. 2021-01-01. U.S. Hydropower Market Report. https://doi.org/10.2172/1764637

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2026

Validation of the NLR Pumped Storage Hydropower Cost Model

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) first released its pumped storage hydropower (PSH) cost model in 2023 as the most detailed bottom-up PSH cost model available to the public. It is available both as a spreadsheet and an interactive web tool, enabling users with a variety of PSH interests to transparently characterize costs of alternative PSH sites and designs. The PSH cost model cannot replace detailed site-level studies and design, but it is important to validate it against other industry PSH cost estimates. The initial model methodology report validated the cost model for a single proposed site, the Eagle Mountain Project in California. This slide deck documents an expanded validation exercise using cost data from six other sites: Goldendale (Washington), Seminoe (Wyoming), Gordon Butte (Montana), Swan Lake (Oregon), White Pine (Oregon), and Lewis Ridge (Kentucky). It compares itemized costs from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) applications and other reported costs with NLR PSH cost model outputs after customizing inputs for each site. The validation exercise finds that the NLR model's conservative indirect cost assumptions often drive overall cost overestimation, with direct cost comparisons typically agreeing more closely. All cost model estimates are well within an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimation range (-50% to +100%), with five within the AACE Class 4 range (-30% to +50%) and four being within 15%. This result is considered reasonable performance for a parametric model applied at a preliminary design stage.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Pumped Storage Hydropower Operation & Maintenance Cost Estimation

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) develops and hosts a pumped storage hydropower (PSH) cost model that is the most detailed bottom-up PSH cost model available to the public. It is available both as a spreadsheet and an interactive web tool, enabling users with a variety of PSH interests to transparently characterize costs of alternative PSH sites and designs. The NLR PSH cost model was designed originally to consider only upfront capital costs only. This slide deck describes methodology to expand the cost model to include operations and maintenance (OM) costs. OM costs are characterized as five distinct components with unique sources and methods for cost estimation. By combining methods for each of these components into a cumulative OM cost estimate, these methods allow a more complete estimation of total OM costs that agrees with existing literature values. The methods are scalable and transparent, allowing them to be readily to applied to any prospective PSH facility for a representative preliminary OM cost estimate in advance of detailed site-specific engineering and other studies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Staying Current: A Community Readiness Framework for Marine Energy Applied to River Current Energy in Alaska

Marine energy-including wave, tidal, and river current energy-can provide a local energy source for rural and remote communities. Marine energy has the potential to bolster self-sufficiency and create economic opportunities while preserving ecological integrity. Communities may be interested in deploying, testing, and advancing these early-stage technologies to meet their needs. However, limited capacity, workforce constraints, and other barriers can challenge development. To better understand a community's interest in and preparedness for marine energy, we developed a suite of 150 'metrics of readiness.' Organized across seven categories-technical, social, environmental, strategic, governance, economic, financial-and 29 subcategories, the metrics provide a holistic perspective beyond the technical aspects of an energy device. We conducted a desktop application of the metrics of readiness for Igiugig, Alaska. The metrics were applied retrospectively for two points in time: before (2009) and after (2018) in-stream testing of a river current energy device. By documenting changes among categories and subcategories of the metrics, our results show the evolving nature of community readiness for river current energy. They also illustrate how our interdisciplinary framework captures the investment in environmental effects research and commitment to strategic planning that occurred in Igiugig. In future applications, we envision the framework could be used to foster public engagement in marine energy, collaborate with communities in project development, shape capacity building activities, prioritize investments, and inform research needs. While our study focuses on enabling river current energy in Alaska, the metrics of readiness have the potential to inform implementation of other renewable technologies with communities in new geographies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗