Water Management Representatives

Transcription

1 1 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency A multicounty agency authorized to plan for and acquire supplemental water supplies, encourage water conservation and use of recycled water on a regional basis. [Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Act, AB2058(Papan-2002)] Water Management Representatives February 4, 2016

2 Drought Update Steven R. Ritchie Assistant General Manager, Water February 4, 2016

3 Reservoir Current Water Storage San Francisco Water January 31, 2016 Reservoir Storage Levels As of midnight on: 31-Jan-2016 Current Storage 1,2,3 Maximum Storage 3,4 Available Capacity Percent of Maximum Storage Normal Percent of Maximum Storage 5 (AF) (AF) (AF) Tuolumne System Hetch Hetchy 280, ,360 79, % 61.3% Cherry 94, , , % - Eleanor 3,800 27,113 23, % - Water Bank 192, , , % 98.4% Total Tuolumne Storage 571,806 1,230, , % - Local System Calaveras 28,387 96,670 68, % - San Antonio 48,554 50,637 2, % - Crystal Springs 53,138 58,309 5, % - San Andreas 17,580 19,027 1, % - Pilarcitos 2,865 3, % - Total Local Storage 150, ,711 77, % - Total System Storage 722,330 1,458, , % 78.1% Total without water bank 529, , , % -

4 Cumulative Precipitation

5 Snowpack

6 Tuolumne River Water Available to the City with July 2016 Forecast Values

7 Upcountry 6-station Precipitation index as of January 31 st Annual Total: 35.6 inches YTD Total: inches 7

8 Bay Area 7-station Precipitation Index as of January 31 st Annual Total: 26.9 inches YTD Total: inches 8

9 Total Deliveries

10 10

11 Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Climate Change: Observations and Projections BAWSCA Water Managers February 3, 2016 David Behar Climate Program Director Water Enterprise, SFPUC 11

12 Climate Change: Observations and Projections Observations and projections, key climate variables and indicators: Temperature Precipitation Snowpack Climate extremes Drought Sea level rise 12

13 Observations: Global Temperature

14 2015: Warmest Year on record (since 1880) 14

15 Observations: Hetch Hetchy Source: Hydrocomp, Inc. Sensitivity of Upper Tuolumne River Flow to Climate Change Scenarios. 2012

16 Projections: Global Temperature IPCC, 2007 IPCC,

17 Projections: Decreasing Snowpack RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 CA Dept. of Water Resources June 2015 (from Pierce and Cayan 2013) 17

18 Observations: California Precipitation Abatzoglou, J.T., K.T. Redmond, L.M. Edwards, 2009, Classification of Regional Climate Variability in the State of California, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology,48,

19 Projections: Northern California Precipitation

20 Projections: Precipitation Extremes, Both Dry and Wet No Rain Days Heavy Rain Days ( ) vs. ( ), RCP 8.5

21 Water Year Index Drought: San Joaquin River Water Year Index San Joaquin River Water Year Index Water Year Index (WYI) WYI Trend Year Moving Trend Water Year Data from California Department of Water Resources, Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification Indices Graphed by Jordi Vasquez, SFPUC Project Pull Research Assistant/Intern. 21

22 Projections: Sea Level Rise Year Projections Likely levels of SLR Ranges Unlikely but possible upper bound in 12 in in 24 in in 66 in 22

23 Guidance for Incorporating Sea Level Rise into Capital Planning in San Francisco: Assessing Vulnerability and Risk to Support Adaptation Adopted September 22, 2014 Revised December 14, 2015 For Guidance, Checklist, and related materials see: -resources/sea-level-riseguidance/ 23

24 Chain of Models GCM Ensemble T, P, Solar, Wind What climate scientists know Downscaling Watershed scale, sub-daily timestep Hydro Model Watershed features, climate characteristics What water managers know Information, Collaboration, Iteration: Bi-Directional (top down, bottom up) Operations Model Reservoir ops, trans & distrib, demand Water Utility Planning Adaptation Decision(s)

25 Thank you! David Behar Climate Program Director, SFPUC 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 10 th Floor San Francisco, CA

26 26

27 FY Bond Surcharges Adopted by BAWSCA Board Agency Annual Bond Surcharge Monthly Bond Surcharge Agency Annual Bond Surcharge Monthly Bond Surcharge Alameda County WD $1,558,173 $129, Mid Pen WD $475,458 $39, Brisbane Water $56,122 $4, Millbrae $357,620 $29, Burlingame $721,022 $60, Milpitas $947,301 $78, Coastside County WD $312,002 $26, Mountain View $1,418,842 $118, CWS - Bear Gulch $2,080,590 $173, North Coast WD $705,660 $58, CWS - Mid Peninsula $2,576,594 $214, Palo Alto $1,800,952 $150, CWS - South SF $1,038,931 $86, Purissima Hills WD $302,169 $25, Daly City $591,866 $49, Redwood City $1,536,238 $128, East Palo Alto WD $260,819 $21, San Bruno $169,848 $14, Estero Municipal ID $859,152 $71, San Jose (North) $978,597 $81, Guadalupe Valley $74,693 $6, Santa Clara $320,384 $26, Hayward $2,659,992 $221, Stanford University $414,614 $34, Hillsborough $470,574 $39, Sunnyvale $1,412,930 $117, Menlo Park $474,746 $39, Westborough WD $108,890 $9, Total $24,684,779 $2,057,065 27

28 FY 2017 Rate Range Informal Rate Update: $4.01/Ccf To be confirmed by the SFPUC on 2/18/2016 Rate = (Wholesale Revenue Requirement * + Balancing Account) Wholesale Water Deliveries Input Low Range High Range Notes Wholesale Revenue Requirement * ($) $235 million $229 million Varies as a result of proportional cost sharing Balancing Account ($) $27 million $27 million Assumes FY water deliveries of 116 MGD Wholesale Water Deliveries (Ccf) 58.6 million (120 MGD) 51.2 million (105 MGD) Wholesale Rate ($/Ccf) $4.47 $5.00 Percent Change 19% 33% * Net of wholesale coverage reserve and service charge 28

29 29 SWRCB Has Adopted Revised Emergency Drought Regulations SWRCB issued draft regulations for comment in Jan. Adjustments to conservation standards address factors contributing to water use and new supplies - Climate - Growth - Drought-resilient supplies Adjustments may reduce individual agency s conservation standards by up to 8 percent SWRCB expects credits and adjustments will reduce savings from 25% to near 20%

30 30 BAWSCA Responded to Draft Regulations BAWSCA submitted a comment letter on draft regulations - BAWSCA interprets revisions to result in no redirected impact to others - Establish a process for rescinding mandatory reductions should water supply conditions warrant - Clarify that revised emergency regulations (1) will not be applicable in future droughts and (2) should not be construed as basis for future drought response by State

31 31 Next Steps in SWRCB Process Regulations will be submitted to Office of Administrative Law for review and approval If approved, will take effect immediately and remain in effect for 270 days from approval date BAWSCA is assessing the impacts of proposed changes on BAWSCA member agencies SWRCB to review conditions in April

32 32 BAWSCA Agencies Achieved 28% Savings through December 50% 45% 40% 28% Overall Savings 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Conservation Standard % Reduction (Cumulative from June 2015) Overall BAWSCA % Reduction BAWSCA Overall Conservation Standard

33 33 24 BAWSCA Agencies Have Achieved Total Savings Target Alameda CWD Burlingame CWS - Bear Gulch CWS - Mid Peninsula CWS - SSF Coastside CWD Daly City East Palo Alto EMID Hayward Hillsborough Menlo Park MPWD Millbrae Milpitas Mountain View NCCWD Palo Alto Redwood City San Bruno San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale Westborough WD 90% 98% 109% 117% 112% 119% 129% 118% 160% 149% 148% 143% 149% 164% 181% 224% 237% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 244% 247% 258% 263% 279% 274% 282% % of Total Savings Requirement Achieved

34 Million Gallons 34 BAWSCA Agencies Achieved 148% of Total Savings Target Savings Achieved: billion gallons 16,000 14,000 Annual Savings Target: billion gallons 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - Water Savings Target (June 2015 Feb 2016) Water Savings Achieved through Dec-15

35 35 BAWSCA Agencies Achieved 74% of Oct 2016 Savings Target Westborough WD Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose San Bruno Redwood City Palo Alto NCCWD Mountain View Milpitas Millbrae MPWD Menlo Park Hillsborough Hayward EMID East Palo Alto Daly City Coastside CWD CWS - So. SF CWS - Mid-Pensinsula CWS - Bear Gulch Burlingame ACWD 43% 50% 47% 55% 60% 64% 59% 58% 75% 78% 84% 81% 77% 74% 87% 122% 121% 114% 126% 137% 132% 139% 145% 153% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% % of Total Savings Requirement Achieved

36

37 SFPUC Expected to Revise WSIP Budget and Schedule SFPUC indicated that several WSIP project budgets as well as the overall budget need to be increased - Calaveras Dam - Alameda Creek Div. Dam - Bioregional Habitat - Various legal claims - Replenish contingency Estimated cost increase - $80M Less detail on potential extension of WSIP schedule, but not expected to impact in-service dates BAWSCA scheduling follow up meeting to discuss implications on WSIP, CIP and Hetch Hetchy CIP

38 10-Year CIP Not Impacted by WSIP Budget Increase Water Enterprise able to achieve funding of proposed CIP without major deferrals of projects Major increase in pipeline improvement program reflects aggressive approach to deal with known problems Process underway to provide clarity to currently adopted Level of Service (LOS) goals - Add specifics to cover system performance areas for entire CIP and reflective of comprehensive SFPUC objectives

39 Review of SFPUC s Plans in Case of Mountain Tunnel Outage Underway BAWSCA continues review of SFPUC s Bay Area Water Delivery Plan - Part of Mountain Tunnel Emergency Response Plan Outlines proposed actions to ensure that region s water needs are met in event of Mountain Tunnel outage BAWSCA provided written comments on Plan BAWSCA and SFPUC kicked off monthly meetings to discuss progress

40

41 Network Formed to Support Sustainable Supply Development BAWSCA is exploring opportunities with a new network of water utility leaders and elected officials Membership is from across the Southwest US Group s focus is on development of distributed supplies and conservation Offering consultant support and communication strategies Major funding from Walton Family Foundation Inaugural summit in late March in Phoenix

42 Alliance is Seeking Partnerships with Local Agencies Current efforts include: - Working with legal and accounting experts to ease use of debt-financing to fund distributed infrastructure and conservation programs - Training and certifying contractors to conduct professional water efficiency inspections and install greywater systems Seeking local partners for pilot projects/efforts

43 Current WaterNow Alliance Partners

44

45 Supply Reliability Information Provided for UWMPs SFPUC Reliability Letter Provides available supply to wholesale customers under dry year scenarios o Tied to Tier 1 Plan, which allocates water between SFPUC retail and the wholesale customers collectively BAWSCA Tier 2 Drought Allocations Individual agency allocations for dry year scenarios o Tied to Tier 2 Plan, which allocates water among individual agencies o Key components are Base Year demands and Individual Supply Guarantees (ISG)

46 Shortage Allocation Process SFPUC determines a system-wide shortage exists and declares a water shortage emergency (Water Code Section 350 et. Seq.) Tier 1 Allocations Calculated by SFPUC (WSA Attachment H) Tier 2 Allocations Calculated by BAWSCA (DRIP) SFPUC implements allocations based upon BAWSCA-provided calculations

47 Tier 2 Assumptions for 2015 UWMP Model Runs Base Year of (most recent normal year) Total available supply to the wholesale customers from SFPUC letter on supply reliability o MGD available supply (Base Year scenario for Years 2 and 3 of a multiple dry year shortage) o MGD (Years scenario for Years 2 and 3 of a multiple dry year shortage) Current DRIP results should be used for UWMPs

48 Agencies Should Document Limitations of DRIP Projections DRIP calculation relies on several factors that will change over time o Base Year adjusted to most recent non-drought year o SFPUC purchases in Base Year is biggest factor o Future changes in base/seasonal use may also impact allocations DRIP results are highly dependent on agency interrelationships Current Tier 2 Plan expires in 2018

49 Allocation Factor (MGD) Agency Allocations Impacted by Base Year SFPUC Demand 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% FY Base Year FY Base Year

50 % Change in Allocation Agency Allocations Impacted by Base Year SFPUC Demand 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% % Change in Allocation Factor from FY to FY Base Year

51 Percent Change Future Demand Changes Will Impact Allocations 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% Change in SFPUC Purchases (FY to FY 40-41) Example Change in DRIP Allocation (FY to FY 40-41)

52 BAWSCA to Provide Tier 2 Analysis Summary Tier 2 Model Run results were previously provided BAWSCA to provide memo summarizing: o Tier 2 model run parameters and results o Model limitations o Factors impacting future allocations Memo to be provided to agencies by next week Additional information available upon request

53

54 FY WCDB Data Entry Was Due on November 13th 2 Agencies that have not completed Annual Survey data entry: East Palo Alto EMID 23 Data needed to complete the BAWSCA Annual Survey and Conservation Reports

55 Annual Survey Completion Pending Agency Data Agencies will have opportunities to review individual Annual Survey information and complete document o Agency Profiles for review ASAP o Draft Annual Survey for review in late Feb Final Annual Survey to be complete by March 2016 REMINDER: Please update monthly production data in WCDB

56

57 BAWSCA Preparing to Launch New Website

58

59 SFPUC Annual Meeting with Wholesale Customers and BAWSCA February 18, am 11am Millbrae Headquarters Draft Agenda Comments and additional topics due to SFPUC today