I didn't say HSR wouldn't take much power to run. It certainly will, though for precise numbers some real research would be needed. Some very rough estimates are probably in the EIRs available at [www.hsr.ca.gov]. If dropped full-scale into today's electric grid, bad things would happen. But if more power sources and distribution systems are developed during the 10-20 years it takes to build the train system, as will certainly be done, there's no reason why it can't work.

The point about Caltrain ignores 1) the timing (again, not right now); and 2) the public utility status of PG&E. One of the costs of electrifying Caltrain is building a traction substation network and the necessary feeders for that. PG&E will build out whatever network improvements are necessary for those feeders, at some cost to Caltrain of course. As for power sources - that's at least partially deregulated, and I would expect 1) Caltrain will put power supplies out for bid, with PG&E mainly just transporting the power, as most modern electric railroads do; and 2) if new plants are needed to supply it, they will be built, most likely renewables or out of state or both by companies that specialize in running power plants. While a large load, it's not overwhelming, and it's spread out over the whole Peninsula so no individual city will be the site of a huge power station. Classic case of "remote emission vehicles!"

Hydro power will continue to be a small percentage of the power used by HSR, Caltrain, or any of the electric transit lines, more or less in line with its part in the overall power system. Maybe they can buy surplus (if there is any) from SF? Since the really good hydro sites are pretty much all used, I don't see the absolute amount of it increasing much in the future - added power would most likely come from traditional (especially, in CA, natural gas) and other renewable (especially solar and wind) sources.