INTRODUCTION During the drought of 2002, lawmakers in Idaho. ruled that five large coaland gas-fired power plants should be denied water rights for cooling because they would deplete much needed freshwater for drinking and irrigation.1 In Nevada, the 1,580 megawatt (MW) coal-fired Mohave Generation Station was forced to close in 2005 due to lack of groundwater.2 A few years earlier, American National Power had to withdraw its application to build a 1,100 MW natural gas plant near Hillburn, New York, because it created a controversy concerning water rights.3 Far from being isolated examples, water issues have complicated power plant construction or operation in Arizona,4 Georgia,5 California,6 Colorado,7 Massachusetts,8 Missouri,9 New Mexico,10 North Carolina,11 Pennsylvania,12 Rhode Island,13 South Dakota,14 Tennessee,15 Texas,16 and Wisconsin.17

The situation underscores a problem as pressing as it is invisible to many electric utilities, water planners, and even ordinary people: burgeoning water use at conventional thermoelectric power plants. Water use for electric power plants increased five- fold from forty billion gallons per day in 1950 to 195 billion gallons per day in 2000.18 The average power plant in the United States uses about twenty-five gallons of water for every kilowatt- hour (kWh) generated.19 Given that electric utilities produced 4,159,514 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of power in 2007,20 these power plants ostensibly used 104 trillion gallons of water.21 This amount is enough to cover the entire country in two inches of water,22 or to almost completely fill Lake Erie.23

This article explores the consequence of the growing water needs of the U.S. electric utility industry, and suggests that lack of water during the summer months in many regions could complicate continued reliance on thermoelectric power plants that combust coal, oil, natural gas, and biomass (or utilize nuclear fission) to generate power. Part I begins by noting the electricity-water nexus and explaining how conventional power plants "use" water by withdrawing and consuming it, placing a special emphasis on the different cooling cycles at thermoelectric power plants. Part II then focuses on how the water needs of the industry may engender a series of water and power crises in eight future metropolitan areas - Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, New York, and San Francisco - where water resources will be scarce or declining, especially if electricity demand continues to grow as expected. Part III emphasizes what electric utilities can do to minimize their associated water needs, particularly by promoting energy efficiency, deploying wind and solar photovoltaic power stations, and distributing information and more accurate price signals to electricity customers. The importance of exploring the electricity-water nexus, its associated challenges, and its possible remedies is threefold.

First, a slew of government agencies and industry groups, including the National Research Council,24 U.S. Geologic Survey, U.S. Department of Energy,26 U.S. Department of Interior,27 Electric Power Research Institute28, Sandia National Laboratory29, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL),30 and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,31 have recently issued reports focusing on the importance of water use at conventional power plants. These reports, however, mostly argue that better technologies will need to be developed in order to address the industry's growing water needs. The National Research Council calls on the federal government to increase research and development (R&D) funding for innovative energy technologies that utilize less water, while both Sandia and NETL discuss treating and reusing brackish water,33 capturing water vapor from power plants,34 and diffusion driven desalination as important technical options.35 Another study argues that the President should issue an Executive Order granting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authority to designate select parts of the country "National Electricity-Water Crisis Areas."36 In December 2008, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper for and against strengthening the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations concerning the intake of water at conventional power plants, but the Court has not yet made its decision and the case concerns only the damage of power plant intake structures to fish and aquatic biodiversity. 7 Senators Bingaman and Murkowski even introduced legislation in early 2009 to commission a study on electricity-water problems and produce a roadmap, but their bill is uncertain to pass and again focuses on federal action.38 While focusing on federal research and national legislation is indeed important, equally significant is the role that electric utilities, public utility commissioners, and state regulators can undertake to avoid new thermoelectric power plant construction, invest in energy efficiency and renewable power resources, and alter electricity prices, either in conjunction with or independent of federal action.

Second, despite this collection of reports, existing electricity planners and water managers do not appear to be responding to electricity and water problems quickly or comprehensively. The Clean Air Task Force has also concluded that "water use and consumption have not been significant factors in decisions related to the permitting and siting of power plants."39 Peter Gleick has noted that "energy and water issues are rarely integrated into policy."40 Neither energy nor water planners are consequently trained to think about electricity and water in a systematic way.41 Electricity industry advocates continually downplay the importance of clean energy sources for minimizing thermoelectric water consumption. When assessing solutions to reduce the water use from conventional generators, the Electric Power Research Institute, for example, mentions variable speed electric drives, advanced membranes, ozone disinfection, electroseparation, and freeze-thaw wastewater treatment as important water technologies, but not energy efficiency, demand side management, or renewables.42 Conversely, an influential RAND report43 on water management focuses exclusively on tools such as "supply management" (including the location, development, and exploitation of new sources of water such as building new dams and control structures, desalination plants, arranging for inter-basin transfers of water, reclamation and reuse) and "demand management" (such as water quality matching, privatization, and water pricing) but never once mentions energy policy tools or more efficient power plants. This article is an important call for more synergistic thinking that views electricity and water problems as interconnected, especially insofar that energy efficiency and renewable power plants can simultaneously reduce demand for electricity and improve the availability of water.

Third and finally, the challenges related to water scarcity and electricity are not confined to the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency believes that more than three billion people will be living in water-stressed regions around the world by 2015 (with a majority concentrated in North Africa and China). Water tables for major grain producing areas in northern China are dropping at a rate of five feet per year, and per capita water availability in India expected to drop fifty to seventy-five percent over the next decade. The American Museum of Natural History reports that about 900 million people spread across twenty-seven developing countries already lack adequate access to water.46 Thus, an exploration of how utilities in the United States may respond to electricity-water crises can offer policymakers insight into how the industry can address what is sure to become a pressing global dilemma.

PART I: THE ELECTRICITY WATER NEXUS

Almost all conventional power plants, including coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear facilities, employ one of three types of cooling cycles in their generation of electricity. Once-through cooling systems withdraw water from a source, circulate it, and return it to the surface body. Re-circulating or closed-loop systems withdraw water and then recycle it within the power system instead of discharging it. Dry cooling systems, which are not widely adopted, use air instead of water to cool power stations.

As their name implies, once-through cooling systems, or "open- loop" systems, only use water once as it passes through a condenser to absorb heat. After it passes through the plant, heated and treated water is then discharged downstream from its point of intake to a receiving body of water.47 Since such cooling systems release heated water back to the source, they can further contribute to evaporative loss by raising the temperature of receiving water bodies.48 Once-through systems are responsible for withdrawing ninety-one percent of the nation's water used for power plants, and are also utilized by more than half of the country's fleet of nuclear reactors.49

Re-circulating or closed-loop systems, by recycling water, withdraw much less of it but tend to consume more. To maintain plant performance, water is frequently discharged from the system at regular intervals into a receiving body of water or collection pond, but is otherwise recycled as much as possible. Since it is being reused, the water requires more chemical treatment to eliminate naturally occurring salts and solids that accumulate as water evaporates. Closedloop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the cooling cycle.50 Dry-cooling, an approach that replaces evaporative cooling towers in closed-loop systems with cooling towers dependent entirely on air, works best in colder weather and in arid environments.51 Only a very small number of plants rely on dry cooling, since they lower plant efficiency and cost the most.5

When taken together, the once-through, closed, and dry cooling systems in place at these power plants use a significant amount of water. (The term "use" encompasses both water consumption53 and water withdrawal).54 Using the most recently available data from the U.S. Geologic Survey,55 thermoelectric power plants used more than 195 billion of these gallons of water per day, or fortyseven percent of the nation's total, in 2000 (See Figures 1 and 2). According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, water withdrawals for thermoelectric generators differ greatly by state. When looked at geographically, Texas withdrew the largest amount of water; Illinois, Texas, and Tennessee accounted for twenty-two percent of all total freshwater withdrawals; and California and Florida accounted for more than forty percent of saline surface water withdrawals (See Table 1 and Figure 3). This means that, on average, thermoelectric generators use more water than the entire country's agricultural and horticultural industry.56

Figure 1 : Total Water Withdrawals in the U.S. by Category57

Figure 2: Total Water Consumption in the U.S. by Category58

Table 1: Thermoelectric Power Water Withdrawals by State (millions of gallons/day)59

Table 1: Thermoelectric Power Water Withdrawals by State (millions of gallons/day)59

Figure 3: Thermoelectric Power Withdrawals by Water Quality and State60

Such immense water needs produce equally immense concerns given the likelihood of future droughts and shortages, especially during the summer months. Even under normal conditions, water managers in thirty-six states anticipate shortages in the next ten years.61 Similarly, using a historical database of droughts going back to 1895, the U.S. Geologic Survey has predicted that almost one-fourth of the country will risk severe droughts by 2040.62 The most severely hit part of the country will be the West. As early as 2025, the U.S. Department of Interior cautions that "demands for water in many basins of the West exceed the available supply even in normal years."63 Given the intensity of the existing electricity industry's water needs, if it grows as predicted, it will directly trade off with the water available for drinking, industry, and agriculture. Utilizing data from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Geologic Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it appears that these tradeoffs will become most severe in twenty large metropolitan, areas.64 These regions of the country expect to add at least 2,700 MW of thermoelectric capacity and will experience population growth of at least 500 people per square mile. Thus, these regions will face water shortages of at least 1.52 inches in the summer by 2025 (See Table 2).65

Table 2: The 20 Metropolitan Areas in the United States Most at Risk to Water Shortages Resulting from Thermoelectric Power Plants, 2025(66)

PART II: ELECTRICITY- WATER CHALLENGES IN EIGHT METROPOLITAN AREAS

To better illustrate many of the challenges facing electric utilities and water planners in these metropolitan areas, this section explores eight of them in detail: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, New York, and San Francisco. These eight regions plan to add a collective 129,828 MW of thermoelectric capacity between 2000 and 2025, power stations that would use 25.6 trillion gallons of water per year (or more than seventy billion gallons of water per day).67 The dynamics of the water needs and consequences for each regionwill differ greatly. In some regions, such as Colorado, Georgia, and North Carolina, greater water use from power plants in 2025 could compete with the water needed for drinking, industrial manufacturing centers, and commercial enterprises. Water withdraws and consumption for power plants in Illinois and Nevada could deplete water from Lake Michigan and Lake Mead (respectively,) violating international law. In California and New York, greater power plant additions could compromise the stability of fisheries and accelerate the extinction of endangered species.

Atlanta, Georgia

In the Atlanta metropolitan area, Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, intends to add 3,480 MW of thermoelectric capacity between 2000 and 2025. 68 Georgia Power currently services 1.13 million customers in the Metro Atlanta region, yet their 16,000 MW portfolio is heavily water-intensive. About seventy-five percent of their fleet is coal powered, eighteen percent nuclear powered, six percent oil and gas powered, and one percent from hydroelectric sources.69 Indeed, more water will be lost as steam from Georgia Power's two nuclear plants than used by all residents of downtown Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah combined.70 Within the state as a whole, thermoelectric plants use slightly more than half of all surface water, which then reduce drinking water supplies by reducing flows to Lake Lanier.

The most immediate consequence of increased thermoelectric water use in Atlanta will be tradeoffs with other major industrial and commercial water users in the region. These include Georgia-Pacific Corporation (one of the world's largest manufacturers of tissue, packaging, paper, pulp and building products), Mohawk Industries (the world's largest producer of flooring and carpets), and the city's water utility. The top commercial Atlanta customers for water included plants operated by die Coca-Cola Corporation, Pepsi Cola Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Edwards Baking Corporation. Pepsi's Gatorade plant, for instance, uses about five million gallons of water every month.71

State policymakers seem to recognize the danger of water shortages, and a fierce legal battle has erupted. Georgia is fighting to hold back more water along its river basins and reservoirs, but Florida and Alabama argue that Georgia has mismanaged water resources and that extra Georgian withdrawals would dry up river flows that support out of state power plants, farms, fisheries, and industrial users.72 Alabama, for example, says that restrictions on water use in Georgia would impede electricity production at their Farley Nuclear Plant, also on die Chathoochee River, threatening power outages among 800,000 residents in three states.73 Tri-state water negotiations have so far only precipitated into eight active lawsuits, and Georgia's state assembly passed a resolution calling on the governor to set up a commission looking into having the border redrawn through die middle of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Resolutions were later introduced in both the state House and Senate to annex part of Tennessee to increase Georgia's access to water. The mayor of Chattanooga, who would lose half his city if Georgia's border was redrawn, sent a consignment of water bottles to Georgia lawmakers. He publicly announced it was better to "offer a cool, wet kiss of friendship radier than face a hot, angry legislator gone mad with thirst."74

Charlotte, North Carolina

In Charlotte, Duke Energy Corporation reported plans to add 17,950 MW of diermoelectric capacity between 2000 and 2025. 75 Duke Energy, the primary electric utility, relies on more than 28,000 MW of electricity capacity to meet the needs of 3.9 million citizens of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina (die Carolinas account for 2.3 million of its customers).76 Of its total capacity, thirty-nine percent is coal-fired, thirty-seven percent is nuclear, tiiirteen percent is hydroelectric, and eleven percent oil and natural gas meaning that their entire portfolio is water- intensive.. Duke already announced in March 2008 that it needed to import 520 MW of power outside of the region to ensure continuation of service during a prolonged drought.77 One town in North Carolina was so dry mat water had to be imported by fire truck.78 In 2008, die Summer nuclear plant (near Columbia) was at such a "critical point" that operators openly discussed having to shut it down for lack of water. The Harris nuclear reactor near Raleigh obtains water from Harris Lake, which was a scant 3.5 feet above the limit that the plant could operate.79

Most of Duke's power plants draw their cooling water from the Santee River Watershed, which includes the Catawba- Wateree River, a water source that has earned the title "America's Most Endangered River for 2008. "80 This "Most Endangered River" basin, however, is about the only place to situate new thermoelectric power plants, and the associated water use with these capacity additions could exacerbate drought (at best) and risk interstate litigation and agricultural collapse (at worst). Low water levels along the river leave bottomdwelling organisms such as clams and mussels stranded, and tend to induce algal blooms that contaminate water supplies. Low water levels also degrade drinking water infrastructure, since they diminish revenues for water utilities (meaning they have less earnings available for maintenance,) and dry and crack soil leading to pipeline malfunctions and spills.81

Chicago, Illinois

In Chicago, electric utility planners intend to add 40,386 MW between 2000 and 2025.82 Chicago is formally served by Commercial Edison, a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation. Exelon, one of the largest electric utility providers in the nation, serves 5.2 customers, but under a $4.8 billion deal sold many of its power plants to Midwest Generation (which generates electricity but only sells it on the wholesale market).83 Commercial Edison, now the nation's largest supplier of nuclear power (and the world's third largest supplier), operates one of the most water-intensive fleets in the electricity industry. The total amount of thermoelectric power generation in the area is about 12,649 MW, drawing mostly from a mix of local rivers, Lake Michigan, and Powerton Lake. The most immediate impact to future thermoelectric withdrawals from Lake Michigan could be a violation of domestic and international law. The Supreme Court decided in 1996 that the State of Illinois had to limit its diversion and use of water from Lake Michigan.85 Under the ruling, Illinois must legally reduce its water usage over the next fourteen years - not increase it for power plants.86 Furthermore, since the Great Lakes contain twenty percent of the world's freshwater supply and ninety-five percent of the freshwater for the United States, they are strenuously protected under international law.87 The 1909 International Boundary Waters Treaty, signed between Canada and the United States, specifically governs water resource use on Lake Michigan.88 The most recent agreements, signed by all Great Lakes State Governors and Canada's Provincial Premiers in December 2005,89 recognize that "the Waters of the Basin are a shared public treasure and the States and Provinces as stewards have a shared duty to protect, conserve and manage these renewable but finite Waters."90 Thus, deploying more thermoelectric power plants could defy domestic court rulings and international treaties.

Denver, Colorado

In the Denver metropolitan area, Xcel Energy may build 4,503 MW of thermoelectric capacity between 2000 and 2025.