CRiSPPy: An advanced hydropower scheduling tool for the Colorado River Storage Project

Ploussard, Quentin [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)]; Pavičević, Matija [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)]; Yu, Ao [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)]; Wilhite, Jerry [USDOE Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Washington, DC (United States)]; Henriquez, Walter [USDOE Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Washington, DC (United States)]

doi:10.2172/2568482

DOE OSTI · 2568482

CRiSPPy: An advanced hydropower scheduling tool for the Colorado River Storage Project

Ploussard, Quentin [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)]·Pavičević, Matija [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)]·Yu, Ao [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)]·Wilhite, Jerry [USDOE Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Washington, DC (United States)]·Henriquez, Walter [USDOE Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Washington, DC (United States)]

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) plays a vital role in delivering reliable and cost-effective hydroelectric power to millions of customers across the western United States. The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) carries out WAPA’s mission in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming and Texas. Achieving this mission requires effective management of the Colorado River system, and depends on the use of advanced analytical tools and modeling methodologies. For many years, CRSP has relied on the Generation and Transmission Maximization Superlite (GTMax SL) model for its mid-term and long-term hydroscheduling needs. However, the evolving energy market, power system operations, environmental rules, and hydrology conditions, coupled with advancements in computational capabilities, have necessitated the development of a more modern and robust solution. This report introduces the Colorado River Storage Project Python-based (CRiSPPy) model, a new, advanced hydropower scheduling tool developed to address CRSP ever-evolving challenges. CRiSPPy represents a significant leap forward in our ability to model and optimize the operation of the Colorado River system. It incorporates state-of-the-art optimization algorithms, enhanced data management capabilities, and an advanced graphical user interface, providing WAPA CRSP personnel with unprecedented insights and decision-making support. This document details the development, capabilities, and implementation of CRiSPPy. It is intended to serve as a comprehensive resource for WAPA staff, stakeholders, and anyone interested in the future of hydropower scheduling in the Colorado River Basin. We are confident that CRiSPPy will enhance WAPA's mission while adapting to the challenges of a dynamic and increasingly complex environment. The version of CRiSPPy described in this report is the version 2.3. New versions of CRiSPPy will be developed as the tool keeps evolving to address CRSP challenges.

Explore related subjects

13 HYDRO ENERGY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ploussard, Quentin [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)], Pavičević, Matija [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)], Yu, Ao [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)], Wilhite, Jerry [USDOE Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Washington, DC (United States)], Henriquez, Walter [USDOE Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Washington, DC (United States)]. 2025-06-01. CRiSPPy: An advanced hydropower scheduling tool for the Colorado River Storage Project. https://doi.org/10.2172/2568482

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↗