Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Studies Update. Planning Committee February 9, 2016

Transcription

1 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Studies Update Planning Committee February 9, 2016

2 Overview AMI Approach Lessons Learned METERS FY16-17 Initiatives RADIO TRANSMITTER Next Steps LEAK DETECTOR 2

3 District AMI Approach Cautious, measured approach Test of evolving AMI technology Learn from pilots and experiences of others Evaluate operational and integration challenges Leverage AMI installations with other projects to maximize benefits/minimize cost Phase AMI installations 3

4 Planned and Existing AMI Installations 4

5 AMI Installations in California City Units Status Vendor Web Interface San Francisco 172k 95% Aclara Yes DSRSD 19k 100% Sensus Yes Santa Rosa 53k Just starting Sensus Planned Pleasanton 21k Just starting Aclara Planned Redwood City 27k 50% Sensus Yes Hayward 35k Just starting Aclara Planned Sacramento 140k 50% Badger Planned Truckee Donner 10K Completed Aclara Planned Beverly Hills 15K Completed Aclara Yes Huntington Beach 55K 80% Aclara Planned San Diego 270k 10k Itron Planned Eastern MWD 145k 40% Sensus Planned Fresno 133k 100% Badger Yes 5

6 Lessons Learned Real vs Apparent Losses 6

7 Lessons Learned District Metered Areas Area Blackhawk Kensington Miles of pipe 6 miles 5.6 miles # Customers Pipe Newer pipe Older pipe (history of leaks) Area demand 0.4 MGD 0.3 MGD

8 Lessons Learned Pipe Assessments 8

9 Lessons Learned Meter Accuracy Flow (gpm) ½ ¼ 1/8 1/16 1/32 % accy Meters decay at low end first Customer leaks are typically at low flows 5/8-inch meter std. of ¼ gpm is too high AMI can help size meters 9

10 Lessons Learned Customer Leak Detection Before with 1,000 gal/hr. leak running 24/7 After leak repaired; est. 200,000 gals. saved over 3 mos. 10

11 Lessons Learned Irrigation Controller Technology July 2013 Irrigating 6days/wk. Use 23,000 gal/mo. July 2014 Installed ET controller Use 18,000 gal/mo. July 2015 Use 13,000 gal/mo. 2 days/wk. watering 11

12 FY16-17 Initiatives Evaluating AMI Business Case Water conservation Water loss control Demand forecasting Energy management Customer service Revenue loss recovery Facility sizing Climate change considerations System water quality improvements Integration with SCADA Asset management and predictive maintenance System reliability Meter management and replacement Security 12

13 FY16-17 Initiatives AMI Fixed Network Coverage 13

14 FY16-17 Initiatives USBR AMI Grant Application Submitted January 2016 $300K to $1M grants 500 to 3,000 AMI endpoints 7 to 15 AMI collectors EBMUD larger customers Awards in June

15 FY16-17 Initiatives Water-Energy Nexus Study CPUC ruling requires investor-owned utilities to propose joint AMI pilot projects with water agencies Proposed project Targets residential customers (randomly selected) Compare up to 5,000 AMI uses with 5,000 nonparticipants PG&E funds additional AMI collectors, endpoints UC Davis water-energy savings analysis EBMUD provides and funding (potentially grant eligible) Project plan due February 16, 2016 Project duration: months

16 Next Steps Continue AMI evaluations and strategic planning toward phased, selective implementation Adopt District AMI standards Install AMI-related equipment based on largest benefit (e.g., conservation, water loss, revenue) Pursue additional AMI grant and partnering opportunities 16

17 Food Waste Program Update Planning Committee February 9, 2016

18 Agenda City of Oakland Update City of Berkeley Update Harvest Power Project Update Preliminary Engineering Amendment Facility O&M Approach Site Utilities and Improvements Project Next Steps 2

19 City of Oakland Update Staff has initiated discussions with Waste Management and City of Oakland staff regarding extension process Submitted letter requesting outside date of December 31, 2017 Ability to accept waste upon notification of readiness WM has agreed to extension with several conditions: Accommodation fee of $9.83 per ton during extension - ~$85k over 6 months District agrees not to pursue material if we miss outside date Meeting with City and WM in next couple of weeks 3

20 City of Berkeley Update Significant opportunity to provide service to Berkeley synergy between District and City goals Estimated 25 tpd of commercial source-separated organics Current City-Recology contract allows diversion of material to EBMUD Contract is on month-to-month basis following end of term in January 2016 New Zero Waste RFP anticipated in next 60 days Staff working with City staff to develop partnership for directing material to EBMUD 4

21 Harvest Power Project Status of Negotiations District and Harvest Power staff have reached agreement on a Term Sheet Contract drafting continues Staff is targeting bringing the full project contract for Board consideration in March Construction would begin in April/May

22 Harvest Power Project Key Issues Timing California Energy Commission grant for Renewable Natural Gas Facility must be operational in 2016 Oakland deadline for accepting material in 2017 Capital Cost Capital cost projected to be higher than previously estimated Working with Harvest to broaden pool of bidders District will perform independent review of cost and schedule Performance Guarantees System performance greatly affects financial assumptions District negotiating mechanisms to address Harvest performance 6

23 Harvest Power Project Financial Review Increased Capital Cost: $25M -> $36M Lowered CNG price: $1.93 -> $1.80 Increased LCFS values: $ > $75.00 District 25-year NPV Previously: $23M Current: $18M

24 Harvest Power Project Commodity Prices $120 LCFS Price $100 $80 $60 Model Assumption ($75) $40 $20 $0 CNG Price Source: CARB LCFS Credit Trading Activity Reports Model Assumption Source: DOE Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report 8

25 Harvest Power Project Sensitivity Analysis Scenario EBMUD 25 yr NPV Difference from Baseline EBMUD 20 yr NPV Baseline $18M $9M Scenarios: Operating Costs up by 5%* $15M -$3M $6M Revenues down by 5% $12M -$6M $4M Operating Costs up by 5% and Revenues down by 5% Example Variables: $9M -$9M $2M Cake dryness of 20% (vs 22%) $17M -$1M $8M Reject rate 25% (vs 20%) $15M -$3M $6M 20% less LCSF revenue $16M -$2M $7M *Note: Operating cost contingency already built into model

26 Harvest Power Project Preliminary Engineering Harvest Power CEC grant is contingent on RNG Facility operating in 2016 Proposed Preliminary Engineering Services Addendum for Board consideration today includes engineering work for RNG as well as placing an order for RNG unit and making a down payment Placing an order now for RNG unit and is necessary to keep the Harvest project on schedule Down payment is approximately $260k, total with engineering is $365k Under a range of scenarios, payback for RNG capital is less than three years, even if the Harvest Power Project does not move forward 10

27 Facility O&M Approach Harvest Power Dedicated Dewatering Facility Operations: District Maintenance: District Operations: District Maintenance: District Recology Polisher Dedicated Digestion Operations: District Maintenance: District Operations: Harvest Power Note: Reopener in Harvest Power contract to revisit labor responsibilities in 10 years Maintenance: District Harvest Power Preprocessing Facility Harvest Power CNG Facility Operations: District Maintenance: District 11

28 Facility O&M Approach (cont.) Discussions continue with 444 Do not currently have alignment on Preprocessing Operations 444 has proposed that Harvest Power staff form 444 A Approach of employer designating a particular union as its employees exclusive representative is not legal (based on District review) Risks associated with operating Preprocessing are fundamentally different than other facilities External Oakland deadline Lack of experience handling collected material Potential for vectors, odors, permit compliance issues Financial consequences District is holding HP accountable Significant value in maintaining clarity and alignment 12

29 Site Utilities and Improvements Project In order to facilitate the Harvest Power Project, as well as the Recology Project, District must upgrade utilities and provide connection points District staff has completed in-house design and is preparing to advertise Scope includes Process water and dewatering centrate piping Digester feed and withdrawal piping Digester gas piping, header, and transfer station Site improvements Estimated $7.8M Incorporated in Project NPV analysis Anticipate Board award in April 2016 Operational completion December

30 Next Steps Continue discussions with City of Oakland staff and WM regarding schedule extension Continue contract negotiations with Harvest and finalize contract Board Consideration February 9 Amendment of Harvest Power Preliminary Engineering Agreement March 8 Amendment of Waste Management Agreement March 22 Award of Harvest Power Agreement April 12 Award of Food Waste Site Utilities Project 14

31 Lead and Copper Rule Planning Committee February 9, 2016

32 Outline Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) District compliance activities District s lead reduction activities Flint, MI LCR revision

33 Lead and Copper Rule LCR promulgated in 1991 Point of compliance moved Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Action Level Corrosion Control Modified in 2000, 2004, and 2007 USEPA looking to make long term revisions (2011)

34 EBMUD Compliance with LCR Date 90 th percentile lead, mg/l June November September September September September September September September Lead Action Level: mg/l

35 LCR Sampling 90 percent of sampled homes required to be under the action level Sampling sites focused on single family dwelling (100 annual) Lead service line Lead premise plumbing Copper piping with lead solder installed after 1982 Sample line is flushed for two to three minutes before water use is stopped Collect first 1-L draw after a minimum 6 hour quiescent period not to exceed 12 hours

36 District Activities Removal of District owned lead service lines (1989) AB 1953 (2006) Reduces lead content from 4% to 0.25% for faucets, fixtures, pipes, etc. EBMUD purchasing specifications require lead free Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (2010) Water quality staff

37 Flint, MI Change in source water (April 25, 2014) MI Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) approved LCR monitoring initiated (July 2014) LCR monitoring (second round; January 2015) DEQ notifies EPA corrosion control for Flint in place (February 27, 2015) DEQ notifies Flint first round of LCR monitoring (0.006 mg/l; March 30, 2015) DEQ indicates to EPA, no corrosion control treatment in place.

38 Flint, MI (cont) August 17, 2015 DEQ instructs Flint to optimize corrosion control based on second round of testing (0.011 mg/l) October 1, 2015; blood lead problem verified by MI Dept Health and Human Services October 16, 2015; Flint reconnects to DWSB Corrosion chemicals added (December 9, 2015) Emergency declared by City (December 14, 2015) Emergency declared by State (January 5, 2016)

39 EPA and Congressional Action US EPA formed Task Group Draft report released December 22, 2015 Primarily requesting data and funds to conduct work Provides a framework for the Task Group Congressional hearing on February 3, 2016 Legislation introduced to change public notification requirements Shorten the time in which the public notification occurs Proposed senate bill to provide funds for lead service line replacement

40 Revising the LCR National Drinking Water Advisory Committee (NDWAC) December 2015 released recommendations Proactive lead service line replacement Voluntary customer tap sampling program coupled with distribution system monitoring Revise public education materials Health based household action level Corrosion control tailored to source water quality USEPA Administrator stated the revised rule will be out in 2017.

41 Questions