Scientific Irrigation Scheduling

provisional analysis and research plan

BPADecember 2014

2

Baseline

Scientific Irrigation SchedulingOverview

A behavior based agricultural program that provides information to growers so they can optimize their irrigation.

Savings are estimated using the SIS calculator.

The calculator converts water reduction to kWh savings.

The calculator estimates 10% water reduction.

The calculator accounts for system type, lift from water source & crop type to estimate the total water volume change.

Regional Technical ForumReview Background

2006

2012

2013

2014

Current RTF SIS protocol approved

RTF vote that SIS out of compliance.

RTF contract staff developed research plan and standard protocol

In June, BPA committed to bring a provisional estimate and research plan to RTF

num

ber

of u

nits

sol

d

kWh consumption per unit

lots little

the market average

num

ber

of s

ales

kWh consumption per unit

lots little

96 kWh

the market average

energy savings

num

ber

of s

ales

kWh consumption per unit

lots little

96 kWh

149 kWh - 96 kWh= 53 kWh energy savings

149 kWh consumption

num

ber

of a

cres

% deviation from water requirement

Under WR Over WR

the market average

num

ber

of a

cres

% deviation from water requirement

Under WR Over WR

the SIS program average

% deviation from water requirement

Under WR Over WR

The difference

mar

ket

prog

ram

Research Plan

Baseline Market Study

High-level principles

Water-requirement (the practice) versus actual (the absolute H20)

Population representative baseline

Requires field collection of data

Tasks

Determine population and sample segmentation (Dec 11)

Develop recruitment strategy (end of December)

Develop field data collection protocols (end of December)

Recruitment (January & December)Begin field work February 2015

Population ProgramOpportunity=

liftdeficit

irrigation

crop value

program coverage

croprotation

mixed fields

Grower Recruitment

Coordination with utilitiesUnbiased sample vs. realities of

recruitment limitationsProviding value proposition for

study participation vs. keeping costs lower

Field Work

Consistency in data collection and data definitions

Safety protocolsCommunication protocols

Provisional

The RTF staff recommendation:

10%* 57%=5.7%

First Number to Examine:

10%Water reduction

The field data we have from 2005: Sites by Crop, treatment and control

untreated

treated

% w

ater

app

lied

from

wat

er r

equi

rem

ent

31

Variance = ( [actual] – [ideal] ) / [ideal]

Impact appears to be on the least efficient irrigators.

10% is a straight average of the

treatment and control: sites were not selected randomly or to be representative.

10% is based on data that are not

statistically significant.

Second Number to Examine:

57%of acres are not implementing SIS practices

35

2005 Study Results

Survey Finding: 43% of irrigated acres are irrigated efficiently

57% is self-reported; it doesn’t include

all utility territories with irrigated acreage; it is higher than indications from USDA Census data.

In the absence of good information

What is fundamental direction of the savings?

– Usually adjusting to baseline brings savings down

– But the Phase I SIS study is:• Statistically insignificant• Not representative by design

Meaning: The research is just as likely to increase savings as decrease savings because the data can’t be reliably extrapolated

The RTF staff recommendation:

10%* 57%=5.7%

Not a marketperspective

A skewed marketperspective

Theoretically inconsistent: these #s are apples and oranges

We can’t (yet) change that we have poor data

We can change that we have a poor method.

Let’s use a good method for our poor data.

Provisional

Step 1: Weight the control to the population acres

Provisional

Step 2: Weight the treatment to the program acres population

Step 3: Average % from water requirement for Cadmus sites

USDA total population

weights, Columbia Basin Program Weights

Treatment Average

Control Average Delta

Wheat 24.6% 13% -19% -5% 14%Corn 19.7% 25% 9% 8% -1%Potatoes 17.2% 15% -1% 12% 13%Alfalfa 29.3% 25% -2% 50% 52%Mint 2.6% 9% 4% 0% -4%Peas 6.5% 12% -11% 3% 14%* please note that population has excluded those crops outside of the Cadmus study;

represents 10% of BPA program population

Percent from Water Requirement

Step 4: Estimate baseline with 43% of treatment, 57% of control

Step 5: Review across baseline population scenarios

Control weighting type:

USDA: Columbia Basin Program Only

No weighting of treatment

or controlControl 17.2% 16.1% 9.9%Treatment (weighted to program acres) -1.7% -1.7% 0.1%Baseline Estimate (43% of treatment, 57% of control) 9.1% 8.4% 5.7%Savings -10.8% -10.1% -5.6%

Options

1) BPA recommendation: Population weight SIS 2005 Phase II study

10.8% (statistically not different than current 10% number – RTF could consider leaving the number alone)

No change (BPA recommendation)– Pros: Doesn’t pre-judge direction; based on good method that doesn’t mix

apples– Cons: Based on poor, insufficient yet best available data with small sample

size

2) June 2014 RTF Staff Recommendation: 5.7% – Reasons: Averages across all fields in study regardless of crop-type.– Pros: doesn’t use 2005 data in analysis that was not the original intent of the

study– Cons: not statistically different than current number, mixes apples and

orangesBPA notification period means no change until growing season 2016