3. The Proposed Pilot Programs
3.1. PG&E - $2,083,853
PG&E has proposed a pilot program with a total budget of $2,083,853 including Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V). As proposed, the program would have the following components:
3.1.1. Industrial Process Improvement in the Food Processing Sector- $285,9805
PG&E developed several program components in collaboration with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma). The first would provide process surveys, audits, and recommendations to create water savings for food processing customers served both by PG&E and one of the two water agencies. PG&E's account services representatives dedicated to the food processing sector have worked with the water conservation staff of both water agencies to identify promising customers for participation in the pilot. Once a customer has followed the recommendations of the survey and installed the water-saving measures, and the water savings have been verified, PG&E and the appropriate water agency would each provide a calculated rebate to offset the cost of the water efficiency improvements. PG&E estimates that the rebates would be $0.75 per water unit (ccf) for EBMUD and Sonoma and $0.08 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for PG&E. Account representatives and water conservation staff determined a reasonable number of projects that could be completed during the course of a one-year pilot, based on experience with similar programs and on the number and quality of potential participants. In establishing its budget and cost-effectiveness analysis, PG&E assumed it would complete four projects in EBMUD's service territory and two in Sonoma's territory. Anticipated changes for participating customers include cleaning and sanitation measures (such as using air for washing instead of water), cooling tower improvements, and water recycling and re-use.6
3.1.2. Industrial Process Improvement in the Winery Sector - $158,698
PG&E developed a similar program with Sonoma to administer process surveys and audits, and make recommendations for water saving process and/or technology changes that save water in the winery sector. In all other respects (participant selection, number of projects per water agency, and calculation of rebates), the program mirrors the food processing program described above.
3.1.3. Ozone Laundry Treatment in the Hospitality Sector - $216,575
PG&E would also work with Sonoma to save water and energy by encouraging replacement of traditional laundry treatment with ozone technology in large hotels and/or commercial laundries. PG&E would attempt to reach 25 customers and to provide rebates on the same basis discussed above.
3.1.4. Low-Income Direct Install High Efficiency Toilet Replacement (in Santa Clara) - $505,600
Working through its existing Low-Income Energy Efficiency program, PG&E would collaborate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Santa Clara) to install 3,000 high-efficiency toilets in the homes of low-income customers. PG&E would identify eligible customers, and manage the work of an installation contractor. Toilet replacement would be available to residents who meet PG&E's current Low-Income Energy Efficiency program participation criteria, are customers of both Santa Clara and PG&E, and qualify for a water agency rebate (the existing toilet must be an older and higher flow model). PG&E would invoice the water agencies for their share of the program. PG&E estimates the cost to be $280 per toilet. Santa Clara would pay $150 per toilet, and PG&E would cover the remaining cost.
3.1.5. Emerging Technologies to Improve Water System Efficiency - $341,000
PG&E proposes to offer incentives to EBMUD, Sonoma, or Santa Clara to test promising new water system operating efficiency technologies. These would include integration of water flow and energy monitoring in Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems to detect water losses, integration of customer metering and SCADA to improve water distribution and energy efficiency, and pairing SCADA with modeling to optimize pumping efficiency.78
3.2. SCE - $2,665,488
SCE would collaborate with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and one or more of its member agencies to directly install high-efficiency toilets for multi-family households in low-income areas jointly served by MWD and SCE. SCE would rely on existing Low-Income Energy Efficiency program contractors as well as existing local government partners, such as the South Bay and Ventura, to identify potential low-income customers and other multi-family opportunities. SCE would also work closely with MWD member water agencies with large low-income and multi-family customer bases, such as the Central Basin Municipal Water District (Central Basin), to identify and reach target customers. Central Basin serves 24 cities in southeast Los Angeles County. SCE would rely on a network of contractors to install the toilets. MWD would provide an incentive of $165 per toilet and each of its member agencies choosing to participate would contribute $50 per toilet to offset the cost of the direct install while SCE proposes to fund the remaining installation cost, currently estimated at $70-115 per toilet, as well as the incremental cost associated with assessing homes for participation.
As an outcome of the June 27, 2007 meeting and agreement with TURN and DRA, SCE reduced the proposed budget for this program from an initial level of $1,693,000 to a maximum of $728,700. At this funding level, this program component represents about 21% of the total pilot budget, which (SCE argues) much more closely matches the ratio of the budgets for SCE's Low-Income Energy Efficiency programs and SCE's overall energy efficiency portfolio. This significant budget reduction is partially offset by the added contribution from member agencies, and would allow this program potentially to deliver up to 4,000 toilets instead of the 7,500 originally forecast in SCE's January 2007 filing. Additionally, SCE's toilet program would focus exclusively on multi-family residences. This approach is intended to augment and complement PG&E's similar proposed program, which would exclusively serve single-family residences.9
SCE would collaborate with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (Orange County) to provide technical audits and recommendations for reducing water consumption for industrial processes. Orange County's existing Industrial Process Water Use Reduction Program focuses on four categories of industrial customers: textiles, food processing, metal plating, and electronics. The program provides technical audits and recommendations to customers to improve the water efficiency of their industrial processes. If the customer follows the recommendations, upon verification of water savings, Orange County, in partnership with the MWD, provides rebates to offset the cost of implementing the audit recommendations. These rebates are $3.00 per 1,000 gallons saved from MWD, and $1.37 per 1,000 gallons saved from Orange County. This pilot program would allow for an expansion of Orange County's Industrial Process Water Use Reduction Program. SCE would provide funding to allow Orange County to provide audits and recommendations to yet-to-be-determined additional industrial customer segments. SCE would enlist SCE customer account representatives to identify additional interested customers. This would also provide an opportunity to coordinate program delivery with SCE's Industrial Energy Efficiency Program which follows a similar program model.
3.2.3. Express Water Efficiency (pH10 controllers and ET11 controllers) - $133,000
SCE would collaborate with MWD to provide rebates for the deployment of advanced pH controllers for cooling towers and Weather Based Irrigation Controllers for commercial customers with chilled water heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and/or large landscape irrigation systems. SCE would incorporate these measures into the existing Express Efficiency nonresidential retrofit rebate program, which is a component of the Business Incentives and Services package of energy efficiency programs. MWD is able to provide rebates for specific water conservation measures, but does not have funding approval to provide technical assistance or design recommendations to customers. MWD would provide rebates to offset the cost of the pH controllers and the irrigation controllers in the amounts of $1,900 per cooling tower controller and $630 per irrigated acre controlled by the irrigation equipment. SCE, through its customer account representatives, as well as through other delivery channels available to the Express Efficiency program, would educate customers in an effort to persuade them to install these water conservation measures. SCE would not provide any additional customer economic incentives.
3.2.4. Lake Arrowhead Water Conservation (Residential Indoor/Outdoor) - $176,500
SCE would collaborate with SoCalGas and the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District (Lake Arrowhead) to provide indoor water-conserving devices for year-round residents and outdoor landscaping retrofits to the 1,000 largest residential water consumers, as identified by Lake Arrowhead. Indoor measures would include high-efficiency toilets, low-flow shower heads, and sink aerators, while outdoor measures would include ET/Smart controllers and sprinkler head retrofits. SCE and SoCalGas would provide funds to expand the number of homes that can be served by Lake Arrowhead's program. Lake Arrowhead would identify candidate homes and contribute funds to purchase the water conserving devices. The customer would be responsible for installation and Lake Arrowhead would verify that the customers installed the equipment.
SCE would collaborate with MWD to educate K-12 and college students about the importance of water conservation and install high efficiency toilets in the school. They would focus specifically on overlapping portions of the SCE and MWD service territories. SCE's existing Integrated School-Based Program utilizes the Alliance to Save Energy to deliver the Green Schools and Green Campus energy efficiency programs, which would be expanded through this pilot program to incorporate a water conservation message into their student education and school toilet retrofit efforts. MWD would provide an incentive of $165 per toilet.
3.3. SDG&E - $1,307,627
SDG&E would request proposals from water management service companies for a Managed Landscape Pilot Project, conducted in the San Diego region at approved property sites owned by third party participants. Potential direct beneficiaries would include multifamily apartment complexes, condominiums, office parks, commercial properties, homeowner associations, and potentially estate properties. SDG&E believes that the ideal location would be a property site with a minimum of four irrigated acres and five or less existing irrigation timers. It is estimated that the pilot would involve up to approximately 20 sites of four acres each.
The objective would be to document and verify achieved water savings and related energy savings obtained through a guaranteed performance contract with the participants, based on a pre-implementation audit and work plan. The pilot project would focus on efficient use of outdoor potable water used for aesthetic landscapes. Given that, in an average year, about 60% of all municipal and industrial water is used on landscape, efficient management of this use of water is critical to achieving water and energy savings. About 45% of all landscape water use takes place in May, June, July, and August when treatment and delivery systems are strained to meet demands. This same time frame coincides with the peak electricity demand period.
SDG&E would issue a competitive bid solicitation to implement this landscape pilot, and provide further program details to the Commission once the company has selected the contractor and finalized the scope of work.
The San Diego County Water Authority (County Water Authority) and SDG&E each audit the facilities of large customers, but normally focus only on water or energy, respectively. For the pilot program, the County Water Authority and SDG&E propose integrating audits in a two-part program strategy.
The first part of this audit strategy is to pursue improvements already recommended by the County Water Authority as a result of prior audits. In partnership with one of its member agencies, Otay Water District (Otay), the County Water Authority entered into a contract with Water Management Inc. to examine water savings at three sites. They have spent a total of $40,000 to complete these audits. However, for various reasons, there has been little or no progress in implementing the recommendations. The pilot sponsors would look at these audits to determine if there are energy savings opportunities in addition to those energy and water savings already previously identified.
SDG&E and the County Water Authority would then work together to identify the appropriate, cost effective incentives to implement the recommendations in the audits and create approaches to overcome barriers to customer participation. SDG&E would provide funding to encourage high-priority improvements, i.e., cost effective energy efficient and water efficient measures, which cannot be funded through other water agency incentive programs. The County Water Authority would also contribute funds, and take steps to help the customer receive the financial incentives.
If all recommended water conservation measures from these audits were to be implemented, the County Water Authority expects the potential water savings to be in excess of 120 million gallons/year (or 447 acre feet per year (AFY)). Assuming an average 10-year life for these measures, this effort could result in 1,200 million gallons/year saved.
The second part of the audit strategy would be to develop and implement an integrated water-energy audit for large customers (where water savings, as well as energy efficiency, can be significant). The County Water Authority and SDG&E would collaborate in the development of a comprehensive water/energy audit tool/instrument to incorporate the lessons learned from the first part of the audit strategy discussed above. A Request for Proposal not to exceed $50,000 (County Water Authority funding) would be issued to conduct an additional seven to ten in-depth water/energy audits of commercial, industrial or institutional high water users in the County Water Authority service area. SDG&E expects that this portion of the pilot program would achieve savings comparable to those resulting from the first part of the program.
SDG&E would seek to increase the use of recycled water program by modifying certain facilities. The County Water Authority and its member agencies would identify sites with completed retrofit plans that would allow the customer immediately to switch from potable water usage to recycled water. SDG&E and the County Water Authority would both provide funding for eligible projects. They estimate this strategy would save 2,100 million gallons of water.
SDG&E and the County Water Authority would prepare with a plan for coordinating their marketing efforts. They would develop marketing materials and conduct training sessions in conjunction with SDG&E's existing account executive organization for commercial/industrial customers. The County Water Authority staff would participate in up to four training sessions. SDG&E and the County Water Authority would conduct joint workshops to educate facility managers about water/energy savings opportunities (such as cooling towers). Additionally, they would conduct workshops for dealers selling equipment that facilitates energy savings through water conservation.
The County Water Authority and SDG&E also plan to expand upon existing effort to coordinate their "mass market" programs. Finally, the County Water Authority would conduct sessions with member agencies to train and educate them on existing energy efficiency programs that can be used to improve the efficiency of the water delivery system (e.g., high efficiency pumps).
3.4. SoCalGas programs - $858,009
SoCalGas would collaborate with Lake Arrowhead and SCE on an Indoor/Outdoor Retrofit Program for residential homes in Lake Arrowhead, California. The indoor portion of the program would apply to Lake Arrowhead homes built prior to 1992, which is estimated at approximately 6,500. These homes are most likely to have older fixtures that are predominantly inefficient in both water use and energy use. The outdoor portion of the program would apply to approximately 1,000 homes which use approximately 1/3 of Lake Arrowhead's annual water supply. Retrofitting those homes is expected to result in substantial water and energy savings.
The following retrofits would be included in the program:
Indoor
1. Replace 5 gallons per flush toilets with efficient 1.3 gallons per flush toilets with a lifetime savings of 0.76 acre feet per toilet (22.5-year lifetime).
2. Replace older shower heads with more efficient fixtures, reducing flow from 4.5 gallons per minute to 2.0 gallons per minute, leading to a lifetime savings of 0.24 acre feet per showerhead (5-year lifetime).
3. Replace older clothes washers with higher efficiency machines, resulting in a lifetime savings of 0.314 acre feet per machine (14-year lifetime).
4. Install new water saving aerators.
Outdoor
1. Install ET/Smart Controllers offering approximately 28% water savings (10-year lifetime).
2. Install more efficient sprinkler hardware with estimated water savings of 5% to 10% (5-year lifetime).
For the indoor portion of the program, the Lake Arrowhead would focus on full-time residents of homes built prior to 1992. For the Outdoor portion of the program, Lake Arrowhead would pursue retrofits for all homes with outdoor irrigation systems. The dual public outreach campaign would include, but not be limited to, direct mail, advertisements, newsletter articles, billing inserts and website information.
Lake Arrowhead would enter into a contract with a qualified vendor to oversee program coordination, quality control checking, and post-installation inspections. Participating residents would receive complete reimbursement for all of the retrofit equipment offered (except the high efficiency clothes washer; the rebate is limited to $200 for this appliance) upon verification by the program contractor that the equipment has been installed. Participating residents could either pay for installation of the equipment or install the equipment themselves. This option would allow the homeowners to choose to have Lake Arrowhead install the equipment at a cost to the resident of up to $700 per house or to complete the installation of the indoor retrofit components themselves, provided they agree to an inspection. Lake Arrowhead's vendor would install all outdoor retrofit measures.
Lake Arrowhead, SCE and SoCalGas would designate any home that is completely retrofitted as a "Lake Arrowhead Water Star," which might increase the home's market value. Lake Arrowhead is also investigating the possibility of offering preferential water rates to homes that are designated as a "Lake Arrowhead Water Star."
The typical cost for indoor retrofit equipment would be $508.70 per household, based on two toilets ($150 per toilet), two showers ($2.85 each), three sink aerators ($1.00 each), and one clothes washing machine ($200).
The typical cost for outdoor equipment would be $520 per household, based on one ET controller ($400), one shutoff hose nozzle ($8.00), and eight high efficiency sprinkler head replacements ($14.00 each).
In 2003, Lake Arrowhead conducted an ET Controller Pilot Program. The purpose of the program was to test, under local conditions, the effectiveness, reliability and potential irrigation water savings that could result from the District-wide implementation of ET Controller technology. It installed sixty ET controllers (43 residential and 17 commercial) and achieved an average of 28% water savings.
Based on that study, Lake Arrowhead estimates that 280 AFY would be saved if 1,000 homes with irrigation systems were retrofitted with ET controllers. Given the lifetime of ET controllers, that equates to a lifetime savings of more than 2,000 acre feet.
The savings from retrofitting sprinkler hardware is not well established, but estimated in the 5%-10% of outdoor water usage (Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation). That represents approximately 50 acre feet of water saved each year by retrofitting 1,000 homes with irrigation systems, which is another 250 acre feet over the lifetime of the sprinkler hardware.12
3.4.2. Pump/Engine Testing/Evaluation Program for Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency and Eastern Municipal Water District - $436,407
This would be a two-phased pilot program. The first phase would be a natural gas pump/engine testing/evaluation program. The results from the pilot program would be used to develop the second phase: a natural gas pump/engine efficiency improvement program.
The historic costs to conduct natural gas pump/engine efficiency tests (labor, services, instrumentation) is about $2,500 per engine/pump (exclusive of water utility time and personnel costs). This is considerably higher than testing for electric pumps. While electric pumps are single integrated units, testing for natural gas driven pumps requires two entirely different evaluations: an evaluation of the natural gas engine that is providing the power to drive the pump, and an evaluation of the efficiency of the pump itself.
Water utilities in the state operate approximately 600 natural gas pump/engines. This pilot would cover approximately 150 gas engines in the SoCalGas service territory. The estimated cost to test these pump/engines is $325,000, plus administration and overhead costs.
The pilot testing/evaluation phase would lead to an evaluation of each water utility natural gas engine/pump, with efficiency rankings and recommendations for improving the efficiency of both the pump and engine. The maintenance/improvement based upon the test results of the pump/engines might include: (1) improvements based on aging/worn equipment (e.g., impellor replacements); (2) changes in hydraulic conditions within the well itself and pumping apparatus; and (3) opportunities to maximize efficiency through technology/improvements in both the engines and the pumps.
SoCalGas argues that this pilot would help establish new working relationships between them and the water agency, and provide critically needed information (an inventory of existing natural gas engine/pump infrastructure efficiencies and recommended improvements) that can be used to build a water natural gas pump/engine energy conservation program for future energy savings in this area.
SoCalGas would use the results of its tests to develop a second phase for inclusion in an upcoming round of funding.
SoCalGas would participate in the same joint marketing program with MWD proposed by SDG&E and discussed in Section 3.3.4., above.
5 PG&E program budget numbers are for PG&E's portion of the partnership only, do not include EM&V, and can be found on page 5 of the July 11, 2007 PG&E supplemental testimony.
6 June 14, 2007, PG&E Supplemental Testimony, pp. 2-1 to 2-2.
7 June 14, 2007 PG&E Supplemental Testimony, pp. 2-5.
8 The Emerging Technologies program evaluation budget of $100,000 will include scoping and characteristics of new water and energy saving technologies that could then be included in new or existing utility energy efficiency programs.
9 July 11, 2007 SCE Additional Supplemental Testimony, p. 13.
10 pH is a measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, numerically equal to 7 for neutral solutions, increasing with increasing alkalinity and decreasing with increasing acidity. The pH scale commonly in use ranges from 0 to 14.
11 "ET" stands for "evapotranspiration". According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "Evapotranspiration occurs when plants secrete or `transpire' water through pores in their leaves - in a way, plants sweat like people do. The water draws heat as it evaporates, cooling the air in the process." http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/LEARN/Evapo
12 July 11, 2007 SCG Additional Supplemental Testimony of Mark Gaines, pp. 4-7.
