© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Implementing Renewable Energy at
Water UtilitiesProject 4424
November 8, 2012
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Outline
• Why renewable energy? • Renewable energy technologies• Implementation considerations• Procurement options• Funding opportunities• Case studies - opportunities,
challenges, and barriers to project implementation
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Why renewable energy?
• Economic Benefits—Offset purchased power—Possible green credits, REC, carbon
credits
• Environmental Benefits—Reduce carbon footprint—Mitigate effects of the water-energy
nexus
• Social Benefits—Very positive public perception
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Projected Electricity Price
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Cost To Treat Water Is Increasing
Cost of energy is increasing
Water demands are increasing
Energy to treat water is increasing
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Renewable Energy Outlook
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Environmental Benefits• 1000 KWH of purchased electric utility
power releases an average of 0.61 tons of CO2 equivalent.
• Renewable reduces grid losses. US average grid losses = 6.5%
• 1000KWH generated locally actually saves 1065KWH of electric utility generation
(Source: USEPA eGRID2012)
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Water-Energy Nexus
• 1kWh of purchased electric energy requires ~25 gallons of fresh water to produce
• Water treatment and distribution average energy usage: 1250 - 2500 kWh/MG
• For every million gallons treated, an additional 31,250 to 62,500 gallons of water resources are consumed.
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Renewable Energy Technologies
• Solar• Wind• Micro-hydro• Geothermal• Tidal • Biomass
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Solar• Advantages:
—Widely available—Mature technology—Low maintenance costs—Prices are decreasing
• Disadvantages: —Intermittent power generation—Power output depends on solar irradiance—Large footprint
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Types of Solar Systems
• Photovoltaic Systems – Converts sun light energy into electric energy
• Thermal Systems – Recovers thermal energy from sun light
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Wind
• Advantages: —Small site footprint—Mature technology
• Disadvantages: —Low persistent noise
depending on design—Aesthetic concerns—Intermittent nature—Sufficient wind not available in
many areas
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Micro-hydro• Advantages:
—Low maintenance costs
—Mature technology—Installation in a
pipeline or outfall• Disadvantages:
—Power output is dependent on elevation changes
—Limited availability in small sizes
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Types of Micro-hydro Systems
• Hydroturbines• Pumps as Turbines
Source: VATech Hydro
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tidal
• Advantages: —Predictable—High energy density
• Disadvantages:—High capital investment—Location limited to tidal areas—Effect on marine life—Not a mature technology
Image Source: www.reuk.co.uk
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Geothermal
• Advantages: —Geothermal HVAC is a
mature technology—Predictable
• Disadvantages:—High capital investment—Potentially high
maintenance costsImage Source: www.geothermalhvacsystems.com
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Biomass• Advantages:
—High energy generation potential
—Large variety of feedstock
• Disadvantages: —Air Emissions—Controversial NIMBY (not in my
backyard)—High capital investment—Potential air permitting issues
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
LEED
• Constructing a LEED building is also a means of reducing energy consumption—Building thermal efficiency—HVAC and lighting efficiency—“Green” building materials
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Implementation Considerations
• Space constraints• Cost of purchased energy• Utilization of renewable energy
considerations• Coordination with the electric utility• Community impacts• Funding opportunities• Project delivery considerations
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Utilization of Renewable Energy
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
UTILITY METER
UTILITY SERVICE
RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM
Offset Purchased Utility Power
Source
OR
Sell Energy Directly To Electric Utility
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Utilization of Renewable Energy
• Offsetting purchased power benefit depends on the purchased power rate—Time of use energy and demand
charges—Demand ratcheting—Minimum billing demand limits
• ALL UTILITY RATES ARE DIFFERENT!
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Renewable energy systems may not always offset demand charges
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 290
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Billing Period Demand Profile
Plant De-mand kW
De
ma
nd
(k
W)
Period of low or no renewable energy generation during peak period (rain event, downtime, etc.)
No offset during peak period
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Selling Energy Directly to Electric Utility
• Generated energy can be sold to electric utility
• Many electric utilities are required to meet Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards
• Energy generated from renewable sources may be “valuable” to some electric utilities
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals
Source:dsireusa.org
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Electric Utility Coordination Considerations
• Parallel operation protection requirements—System modification can be expensive
• Billing rate contract impacts—“Grandfathered” rates
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Community Impacts
• View shed impacts—Solar and wind systems
• Noise—Biomass and wind systems
• Air emissions—Biomass systems
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Procurement Options
• Direct ownership• System owner finances design,
construction, and operation and maintenance
• Third party project delivery• A third party finances design,
construction, and / or operation and maintenance through a power purchase agreement (PPA)
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Direct Ownership
• Advantages• Control power output• Can be built using traditional design-
build or design-bid-build practices
• Disadvantages• Requires upfront capital• Direct negotiation with electric utility • Municipalities generally do not qualify
for government tax credits
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Third Party Project Delivery
• Advantages• No or reduced upfront capital costs• Possibly no maintenance costs• Reduced risk
• Disadvantages• Lower economic return• Long term price changes• May have protracted negotiation• PPA’s not available in all states
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Power Purchase Agreements
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Third Party Agreements Vary
1. Locate renewable energy on-site, and buy power through a PPA
2. Use a PPA to buy renewable energy generated off-site
3. Generate revenue from leasing land — Locate renewable energy on-site, but
power is sent to the electric utility grid
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Funding Resources
• Incentives are constantly changing• Appendix to the report lists current
federal and state incentives • EPA, Energy.gov, Grants.gov• DSIRE – Database of State Incentives for
Renewable Energy • State and local energy offices
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Funding Opportunities
• Government and non-profit grants—ARRA (2009) funds have been committed
• Bonds and Loans• Tax Rebates and Tax Credits• Tax Rebates: Increase tax refund• Tax Credits: Reduce the tax liability
• Federal Investment Tax Credit until 2016• Not available to municipal governments, but
would be advantageous to non-municipal entities
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Project Steps
1. Review plant energy use, the available technologies and determine how the energy will be used
2. Evaluate the capital investment, financing options, and incentives
3. Identify the project barriers and risks4. Identify public impacts 5. Determine the project delivery
method
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Project Challenges
• Upgrading existing structures• Roofs, walls, valve vaults, etc.
• Electrical upgrades• Renewable energy equipment
compatibility with electric utility requirements
• Coordination with electric utility • Paralleling
• Community Feedback
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Case Studies1 City of Portsmouth NH LEED Silver Building2 City of Raleigh NC Solar PV3 Dania Beach FL LEED Gold Building4 East Bay MUD – Sobrante WTP CA Solar PV5 East Bay MUD – Walnut Creek WTP CA Solar PV6 Inland Empire CA Wind7 Metropolitan Water District CA Solar PV8 Portland Water Bureau OR Solar PV9 Portland Water Bureau OR Micro-hydro
10 Southern Nevada Water Authority NV Solar PV11 Southern Nevada Water Authority NV Solar Thermal12 Sydney Water, NSW AUS Micro-hydro
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Case Study Sections
Part 2: Renewable Energy DataTechnology Year InstalledRated Power Output, kW Annual Energy Generated, kWhCapital Cost, USD O&M Cost, USDSimple Rate of Return Average Utility Energy Cost, $/kWhFinancing Energy Savings, USD
Part 3: Project Implementation
Project Drivers
Project Risks
Project Barriers
Type of Contract
Special Permits
Mandates or incentives
Community Acceptance
Part 1: Treatment Plant Information Raw Water Source Population Served
Design and Average Flow
Annual Electricity Consumption
Annual Energy Consumption
Utility Governance Structure
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Case Studies
• Solar – Sothern Nevada Water Authority, NV
• Wind – Inland Empire Utility Agency, CA
• Micro-hydro – Portland Water Bureau, OR
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SolarSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityAlfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility
About the project• 130 kW solar PV system• Demonstration project with a local university• Most power comes from a gas-fired
combined cycle power plant and smaller hydropower facilities
• SNWA wrote the RFP, completed the preliminary design, and contracted the final design and permits to a consulting engineering firm
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SolarSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityAlfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility
Project Drivers• Project was an opportunity to
become familiar with the technology
Project Risks• Approval by the purveying members that control the budget
Type of Contract• Design-Build Contract
Community Acceptance• The facility is in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area,
however, there no concerns about the solar installation.
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SolarSouthern Nevada Water AuthorityAlfred Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility
Renewable Energy Data
Technology Solar PV Year Installed 2007
Rated Power Output, kW 130 Annual Energy Generated, kWh 240,000
Capital Cost, USD $1.4 Million O&M Cost, USD NA
Simple Rate of Return 30+ years Average Utility Energy Cost, $/kWh 0.06
Financing Government Energy Savings, USD /yr $14,400
www.snwa.com/env/sustain_solar.html
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WindInland Empire Utility AgencyRancho Cucamonga, CA
About the project: • Average flow of 5 MGD• Provides recycled water to the surrounding
community• Includes primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment processes for producing recycled water in accordance with California Title 22
• To offset high-carbon emitting operations, IEUA set a goal to operate off the grid by 2020
• Wind power was selected as a viable technology due to its low cost per kilowatt hour and reliability with minimal maintenance
• Additional renewable energy projects by IEUA include solar systems and fuel cells
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WindInland Empire Utility AgencyRancho Cucamonga, CA
Project Drivers• Cost containment, operational reliability,
electricity rate stabilization, and carbon footprint reduction
Project Barriers• Approval from Federal Aviation Administration
Type of Contract• 20 year Power Purchase Agreement with Foundation Wind
Power
Community Acceptance• Positive
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WindInland Empire Utility AgencyRancho Cucamonga, CA
Renewable Energy DataTechnology WindRated Power Output, kW 1,000Capital Cost, USD None
Simple Rate of Return NA
Financing Third Party
Year Installed 2011
Annual Energy Generated, kWh 1,500,000
O&M Cost, USD None
Average Utility Energy Cost, $/kWh 0.115
Energy Savings, USD/yr $100,000+
www.ieua.org
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Micro-hydroPortland Water BureauVernon Tank, Portland, OR
About the project • Installed a grid tied micro-hydro turbine rather than replace a 16” PRV• Designed in-house for a flow rate 6.4 – 8.25 cfs through the turbine • The pipeline is 24” reduced to 10” at the turbine
Challenges• Replacement of deteriorated piping and construction of a new valve vault
Financing• $55,000 grant from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009• $50,000 grant from Oregon Energy Trust upon completion of the project • Energy Trust also paid consultant fees up front for FERC and Oregon
Water Right permitting• Portland Water Bureau also had approximately $35,000 earmarked from
State of Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC)
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Micro-hydroPortland Water BureauVernon Tank, Portland, OR
Project Drivers• Portland Water Bureau seeking to meet the City’s renewable energy goals
Project Risks• Installing a new generator on an existing 80 year old pipe and providing
adequate thrust restraint for the equipment
Project Barriers• Cost of structures to house the energy generation equipment, and the
cost of upgrading the power supply to meet the generation requirements
Type of Contract• Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
Community Acceptance• The project is in an underground vault and not seen by the community
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Micro-hydroPortland Water BureauVernon Tank, Portland, OR
Renewable Energy Data
Technology Mirco-hydro Year Installed 2012
Rated Power Output, kW 30 Annual Energy Generated, kWh 150,000
Capital Cost, USD 155,640 O&M Cost, USD 1500
Simple Rate of Return 15 years Average Utility Energy Cost, $/kWh 0.07
Financing Third Party Energy Savings, USD/yr $10,500
www.portlandoregon.gov/water/
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Summary
• Electricity costs are expected to increase• Installing renewable energy can:
—Reduce electricity costs—Generate revenue for your utility—Reduce carbon footprint
• A variety of funding sources and contract arrangements exist
• Case studies demonstrate that there are a varieties of way to successfully implement projects
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Technical Resources
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory
• Department of Energy • Environmental Protection Agency • EPA-NREL Solar Decision Tree
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Acknowledgements• Thank you to Linda Reekie and the
Water Research Foundation • Fred Bloetscher (Florida Atlantic University)
• Bill Becker, Ben Stanford (Hazen and Sawyer)
• Thank you to all of the utilities which participated in this project.
© 2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Questions