Partnering for Water and Energy Savings

Transcription

1 Partnering for Water and Energy Savings November

2 Welcome to the Webinar! Webinar will be 90 minutes in length with time for questions Audio is through your telephone or computer microphone & speakers The webinar phone line will be muted during the presentation because we are recording Questions can be typed in throughout the webinar and will be answered at the end by the speakers Webinar Speakers Mary Ann Dickinson Alliance for Water Efficiency Rachel Young American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Amelia Nuding Western Resource Advocates Charles Bohlig East Bay Municipal Utility District Dave Bracciano Tampa Bay Water 2

3 Water and Energy are Linked Water is Needed for Energy US Daily Water Usage Total = 410 Billion Gallons in % 3% Power plant cooling 11% irrigation 49% public supply industrial & mining 31% livestock & aquaculture Source: US Geological Survey

4 Energy is Needed for Water Source: California Energy Commission, 2005 Our View AWE recognizes the need for collaboration Efforts for energy efficient use and water efficient use have historically been separate but parallel efforts We are committed to improving joint management of these issues Partner in this project is ACEEE (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy) 4

5 The First Project Joint effort of AWE and ACEEE Purpose: to identify the major research, program, and policy needs of the water energy nexus for decision makers and funders Posted at Major theme: Learn from and Replicate Best Practice integrated energy water efficiency programs Exemplary Utility Programs Saving Water and Energy Together Rachel Young, ACEEE November

6 The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ACEEE is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) that acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments & behaviors Nearly 50 staff based in Washington, D.C. Focus on end-use efficiency in industry, buildings, utilities & transportation Other research in economic analysis; behavior; national, state, & local policy Funding: Foundation Grants (52%) Contract Work & Gov. Grants (20%) Conferences and Publications (20%) Contributions and Other (8%) Benefits of Working Together Increased market penetration of efficiency programs. Creation of dual water and energy audits, rebate programs, and education and outreach efforts reduces the number of times utilities knock on doors. Leveraging relationships with different manufacturers and retailers and running joint programs so that the utilities can bring in multiple stakeholders and take advantage of those different relationships. 6

7 Benefits of Working Together Multiple perspectives and agendas in the program planning process, which can help identify additional untapped savings opportunities. Increased understanding of the relationship between water and energy through advanced tracking, metering and evaluating. Improved cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency when considering both water and energy. Winning Programs Boulder, Colorado Energy Performance Contracting Program Darden Restaurants Darden Sustainability 15 X 15 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Long Term Sustainability Program Southern California Edison (SCE) Leak Detection Pilot Program United Technologies Corporation (UTC) 2015 Sustainability Goals 7

8 Southern California Edison Leak Detection Pilot Program California PUC Water-Energy Guidance: Authorized energy IOUs to conduct water-energy pilots, to inform policy on the water-energy nexus challenges Focused on landscaping, high-efficiency toilets, large customer and water agency site audits, leak detection, and water systems testing SCE s Leak Detection Pilot program emerged as a successful pilot CPUC final report: Program Overview Objective: Identify consumption, metering errors and leakage at water agencies Approach: Comprehensive site water audits at partner water agencies Program partners: Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company and Lake Arrowhead Community Services District Results: Generated energy savings by fixing distribution system leaks (~170 miles of distribution lines were treated) Energy savings: 178,000 kwh/yr Water savings: 81 million gallons/yr 8

9 Lessons Learned Engaging agency staff: Involvement of the SCE program manager made the program a larger priority for water agency staff and increased their comfort because they already had a relationship prior to the pilot. Data challenges: The SCE program manager reported that access, quality and timeliness of data required from the water agencies for the program were among the biggest challenges. Other improvements for future efforts: Use low cost screening methods; Incorporating field visits by evaluators to verify repairs; More resources may be needed for recruitment of water agency participants; Striking a balance between funding comprehensive audits and leak detection and repair. Austin Multifamily Energy And Water Efficiency Program DOE Grant: Collaboration spurred by a competitively awarded federal stimulus grant that encouraged deep dive energy upgrades to existing buildings, including multifamily residential properties. City of Austin s Energy Conservation and Disclosure (ECAD) ordinance: Program was also intended to increase compliance with the ECAD ordinance which requires high energy-use multifamily properties to reduce energy use by 20%. Program website: tes/commercial/multi-family%20properties/index.htm 9

10 Program Overview Objective: To save water and energy and their associated costs in older, multifamily residential buildings, providing benefits to building owners and renters, especially low income residents. Approach: By bundling incentives and providing a one-stop approach the program is able to offer more attractive packages to property owners. Program Partners: Austin Water Utility (AWU), Austin Energy (AE) and Texas Gas Service (TGS). Results: The program has had 817 participants and has installed 249 each of showerheads, kitchen aerators, and bathroom aerators in multifamily facilities. Energy Savings: 497,788 kwh Water Savings: 82,923,912 gallons of potable water Lessons Learned Overcoming legal obstacles: Legal prohibitions cause suspension of AWU programs and when the programs were reinstated staff resources had been reallocated and gaps had to be quickly filled. Coordination: It was difficult ensuring effective coordination between the utilities, including: Guaranteeing that water and energy use data was collected before and after the efficiency measures were installed; Receiving approval from multiple utility company executives and legal departments. Staff and resource issues: The utilities outsource weatherization, weatherization with HVAC work, final inspections, and water efficiency evaluations and repair work to overcome staff limitations. 10

11 Water-Energy Program Directory Questions? Rachel Young Policy Researcher Downloadable version of the Exemplary Programs Report: Water-Energy Program Directory: 11

12 Conservation Synergy: The Case for Integrating Water & Energy Efficiency Programs Amelia Nuding Water-Energy Analyst Conservation Synergy: Electricity, gas and water utilities Shared customers, focus on hot water Examples to look to: ACEEE report, California 12

13 Utility Collaboration Example: Joint Rebates - PG&E + 41 water agencies - Washing machine rebate program - $50 from PG&E, $50-$75 from water utility - Results: 63% increase in participation, ranks highest in customer satisfaction, administrative costs are lower Utility Collaboration Example: Joint Audits - Austin Water, Austin Energy, Texas Gas Service - Tri-Resource - Multi-family housing efficiency audit & upgrades free aerators and showerheads - Higher value package helps to overcome split incentive Image: 13

14 Utility Collaboration Example: Joint Building Efficiency Upgrades - SoCalGas & LADWP - 6 Building efficiency programs - Launched late Each utility is lead on a program when a process/program was already in place - Legal framework established in 6 months The Collaborative Process Guideline 1. Confer with regulatory bodies and secure commitment from top management. 14

15 Utility Collaboration - Basic Types 2. Bring the appropriate staff together to: Prepare market analysis. Identify the best, first collaborative opportunities. Existing programs? 1. Joint Rebates 2. Joint Audits 3. Joint Building Efficiency programs Assess cost, benefits, and financing options. Define roles & responsibilities, and address risks. The Collaborative Process 3. Obtain regulatory approval, implement, and evaluate program performance. 4. Explore new opportunities for expanded collaboration (e.g. cold water & energy efficiency). System water loss detection & repair Municipal irrigation efficiency Agricultural irrigation efficiency 15

16 Identified Benefits of Collaboration: Higher participation rates, broader promotion Lower costs Increased customer satisfaction Improved reputation from working smarter - not harder Coordinated and complementary program design Long-term collaborative opportunities Image: Barriers & Challenges Significant up-front time investment Differences in service territory Differences in data collection protocol and expectations Establishment of trust Regulatory bodies 16

17 Watts in the Water Brochure Thank you! ConservationSynergy.php 17

18 Combining Efforts With The Local Energy Provider Presented by Charles Bohlig EBMUD System 1.4 million customers 85 % residential ~ 210 mgd demand 165 mgd 35 communities Distinct microclimates 330 sq.mi service area >4,000 miles of pipe 400,000 meters 385,000 accounts 18

19 20.0% U.S. Water and Waste Water Rates % Rate Change 16.0% 12.0% 8.0% 4.0% 0.0% -4.0% 4.7% 12.3% 3.5% 6.5% 10.1% 8.8% 7.9% 12.1% 4.5% 4.9% 4.6% 7.8% 7.2% 7.0% 7.1% 15.1% 12.3% 10.9% -0.9% 14.2% 15.0% 13.7% 13.0% Survey Year (all assumed to be Jan. 1, except , which is July 1) 5.1% Water Wastewater CPI Cost of Electricity in California *PG&E Rates, 3.2% average annual rate increase in last 5 years 19

20 Cost of Natural Gas In California *PG&E Rates, 0% average annual rate increase in last 5 years California Water + Sewer Rates 4.4% average annual rate increase in last 5 years 20

21 Embedded Energy in Water Systems ~2.6 watts per gallon Long History With Local Energy Utility Pre-rinse spray valves Combined research Food steamers boiler and non-boiler types Ice Machines air and water cooled Provide training for energy utility representatives EBMUD has a DWR grant for a food service incentive program 21

22 Combined Efforts with Local Energy Provider High Efficient Clothes Washer program Combined efforts began in 1995 Developed into a regional program for the Bay Area In 2012, combined total of 84,600 rebated clothes washers with estimated water savings of 1,990 ac.ft. Water Conservation Showcase 22

23 Energy Rebates for Agriculture Combined Evaluations Original Flight Conveyor in Operation Installed 66 -Rack Conveyor Field Monitoring Results Dishwasher (gal/d) Average Flow Rate (gpm) Booster Inlet Temperature During Flow ( F) Booster Outlet Temperature During Flow ( F) Booster Input 820,500 Btu/h 30 kwh Booster Efficiency 60% 79% Dishwasher Electricity Use (kwh) Dishwasher Operation (h) Estimated Boiler Gas Use (btu/h) at 75% Estimated Boiler Operating Efficiency 4,120, ,000 23

24 Project Annual Savings and Payback Original Flight Conveyor in Operation Replacement 66 -Rack Conveyor Water Use (HCF or 748 gal) 1, Water and Sewer Savings (HCF) 1,614 Gas Use (therms) 18,030 1,630 Gas Savings (therms) 16,400 Electricity Use (kwh) 135,255 67,220 Electricity Savings (kwh) 68,035 Cost of Operation $51,500 $13,200 Annual Operating Savings $38,300 Water, Gas and Electricity Rebates $16,950 Total 1 st -Year Savings Not Including $55,250 Cost of Project Chemical ($47,300) Payback Period (years) Savings.86 Questions? Charles M. Bohlig East Bay Municipal Utility District cbohlig@ebmud.com (510)

25 Water-Energy Nexus: How Outdoor Water Efficiency Affects the Bottom Line Dave Bracciano Water and Energy Webinar Tuesday, November 12, 2013 Background Tampa Bay Water Regional water wholesaler 6 Member Governments 2011 Demand 230 mgd Since 1998, region more reliant on surface water and desalination Pasco Co. New Port Richey Pinellas Co. St Petersburg Tampa Hillsborough Co. 25

26 How Water Supplies Affect Energy Cost and GHG Emissions Groundwater Wellfields Surface water Systems Desalination Plant 505 kwh/mg $50/MG 900 kwh/mg $74/MG 14,000 kwh/mg $1000/MG Tracking Member Government Conservation Annual Tracking Default Outdoor Best Management Practices (BMPs) supplied by Tampa Bay Water Member Governments use linked in program to fill out five year plans and historical implementation Tampa Bay Water calculates GHG reductions based on GHG tool created for region Tampa Bay Water reviews and integrates results into database 26

27 BMP- Alternative Supplies Alternative Water Supplies Reclaimed Water Shallow Wells Other sources Offsets 100% potable use for irrigation Reclaimed major discharge replacement- project specific cost Shallow wells where water tables less than 25 below surface Shallow wells rebate $300- Total Cost $ Other sources include surface water/cisterns/other SF sector potable savings gpad BMP-Irrigation System Evaluations Irrigation System Optimization Evaluations w/o rebates Evaluations with rebates Evaluation Specifics Sprinklers head to head coverage Spray and rotor separate zones Matched application rates No blocked or leaking heads Catch can tests optional 27

28 BMP-Irrigation System Evaluations Evaluation Specifics Savings associated with potential changes to Irrigation system and run times Sometimes done by contractors Increased implementation with rebates Cost up to $200 SF Estimated savings rate based on historical research- 140 gpad SF Programs should be focused on surplus users GHG Emissions Data Linking GHG Emissions to Facilities Data 3 electricity service providers with generation from 6 power plants: TECO Big Bend Power Station H.L. Culbreath Bayside Progress Energy P.L. Bartow Anclote WREC Seminole Hardee Power Station TECO Big Bend Power Station 28

29 Historical Program Results Reclaimed Water Connections- something like connections Shallow Wells/other sources rebates in Pinellas County Irrigation Evaluations Hillsborough, Tampa, and St. Petersburg Total estimated outdoor potable water offset-20.5 mgd Total region 27 mgd Integration with GHG Reductions/Energy Savings Location MGY Pumped KWh/MG (pumped) MGY Produced kwh/mg Produced Progress Energy 12, , TECO 131, , , WREC 660, , , Total 803, , , Desal plant in TECO area Saved 9855 million gallons/year Over 16 million kwh Almost 14,000 ton reduction CO2e Calendar Year 2010 Emissions Data and WY 2012 Water Savings MGD Saved CH 4 (lbs/mg) N 2O (lbs/mg) CO 2 (lbs/mg) Total CH 4 reduction for MG saved (lbs)/yr Total N 2O reduction for MG saved (lbs)/yr Total CO 2 reduction for MG saved (lbs)/yr Total CO 2 reduction for MG Saved (tons)/yr Total CH 4 reduction for MG saved (tons)/yr Total N 2O reduction for MG saved (tons)/yr Total CO 2 reduction for MG saved (tons)/yr Total , ,739, , ,

30 Demand Management Plan Redevelopment Identify and evaluate regional water conservation potential Opportunities to defer the need for capital investment Integration of demand management strategies into the supply planning process Avoided cost evaluation Supply deferral 1 mgd saved = $15-20M capital cost deferment 1 year deferral of $100M capital project saves agency $5M in interest Avoided energy and chemical operating costs- $1800/ million gallons of energy and chemical expenses DMP- Outdoor Program Result/ Potential Regional Perspective Soil Moisture Sensors ET Controllers Alternative Irrigation Source Cooling Towers 30

31 What Else is There? Florida Friendly Landscaping Program Existing Deficit Irrigators UF study on new development alternatives Impacts of new development landscape and irrigation ordinances What Does the Future Hold? Variable Cost of Alternative Water Supplies driven by chemical and energy costs Desalinated water- O&M costs significant Dealing with Climate Change and outdoor water use 31

32 Questions? Dave Bracciano Demand Management Coordinator Tampa Bay Water 2575 Enterprise Road Clearwater, FL (work) Summary Tips for W/E Partnerships 1. Quantify the embedded energy footprint of water supplies and wastewater 2. Identify end uses and customer classes that most benefit from joint water energy programs 3. Prepare cost benefit analysis for both perspectives 4. Seek out the energy utility staff in your service area and discuss common areas of benefit and credit 5. Define cost sharing opportunities and management roles for joint programs 32

33 Summary Tips for W/E Partnerships 6. Develop implementation timeline 7. Procure any necessary regulatory approvals 8. Document barriers and challenges during implementation 9. Document the savings achieved in water, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions 10.Tie greenhouse gas emission savings into local climate change goals In Closing.. Got any questions? Type them in! A PDF of the presentation as well as the recorded webinar will be posted online at The AWE/ACEEE Exemplary Practices Report and Synergy Report are posted online at 33

34 Thank You for Attending the Webinar! 34