We’re Here to Serve: How Your State Energy Agency Can Help You Improve Your Bottom Line Kathleen O’Connor – New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Joseph Cantwell – Wisconsin Focus on Energy Shahid Chaudhry – California Energy Commission WEFTEC 2007 Workshop Session w103 San Diego, California

Why Focus on the Water and Wastewater Sector? Operation is 24/7 Facilities consume 35% of energy used by municipalities Energy costs are second only to labor costs Nationally facilities consume 70 billion kWh/year, with associated costs of $9 billion/year – AND energy costs are increasing Opportunities for Energy Efficiency can be found at most (if not all) facilities

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Established in 1975 Mission to solve State’s energy challenges in ways that benefit economy and environment Funded municipal WWTP projects since 1985; water projects since 1990s

New York State’s Municipal Water and Wastewater Sector 702 WW treatment facilities 9,800 public water supply systems ~3 billion kWh/year $250 to 300 million <6.5 billion gal/day Will require an investment of $40 billion over the next 10 years

Community Water Systems in NYS 11 20 293 2525 Percent of Volume Population Served Number of WTPs <3,300 3,300 to 50,000 50,000 to 100,000 >100,000 Data Source: USEPA SDWIS

NYS WTPs: Comparison of Energy Use by Size Population Served % of Population Served % of Sector Wide Energy Use < 3,300 3.8 12.2 (13.1) 3,300 - 50,000 21.6 61.1 (70.2) 50,000 - 100,000 4.7 11.0 (7.2) > 100,000 69.8 15.6 (9.5) Values shown in parenthesis include estimated distribution energy use.

Breakdown of NYS WTP Energy Use by Size Category Energy Use (kwh/MG) National Average 1 350 Statewide Average 340 Less than 3,300 1,118 3,300 to 50,000 986 50,000 to 100,000 812 More than 100,000 78

Wastewater Treatment Plants in NYS 11 20 293 19 14 43 106 Flow (MGD) 0-1 Percent of Volume >1-5 >5-20 520 >20-75 >75 Number of WWTPs Data Source: NYSDEC 2004 Descriptive Data

NYS WWTPs: Comparison of Energy Use by Size Design Flow % of Treatment Capacity % of Sector Wide Energy Use <1 MGD 3.8 10.3 (11.0) 1 to 5 MGD 7.5 8.3 (8.5) 5 to 20 MGD 13.1 14.2 (14.0) 20 to 75 MGD 23.8 27.0 (26.8) > 75 MGD 51.8 40.0 (39.7) Values shown in parenthesis include estimated distribution energy use.

Breakdown of NYS WWTP Energy Use by Size Category Energy Use (kwh/MG) National Average 1,200 Statewide Average 1,353 Less than 1 MGD 3,749 1 MGD to 5 MGD 1,527 5 MGD to 20 MGD 1,490 20 MGD to 75 MGD 1,562 Greater than 75 MGD 1,067

NYSERDA’s W/WW Initiative Technical Studies; R&D; Performance Contracting; Incentives for Pre-Qualified Measures and ADG-to-Electricity; Technical Resources; Outreach; Training

NYSERDA’s W/WW Initiative - Results <100 projects to date Savings from installed projects - $2.46 and 15.35 kWh per NYSERDA dollar spent – AND municipalities have leveraged $11.95 per NYSERDA dollar spent Estimated savings from all projects “on the books” 73,000 MWh $8.7 million 11.9 MW Peak Demand Reduction

NYSERDA’s Newest Programs Anaerobic Digester Gas (ADG)-to-Electricity Program 24 MW from facilities with digesters (145 WWTPs); an additional 7 MW from remaining facilities Up to $1 million available per site Capacity Incentives: up to $500/kW Production Incentives: up to $0.10/kWh (for 3 years) Part of NYS RPS Energy Efficiency Pilot with NYSEFC New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation administers and finances SRF

One of NY’s Energy Champions: Albany North WWTP Enhancement to furnace control; add’l VFDs; add’l premium efficiency motors; building improvements 2006 2007-2011 Fine bubble aeration VFDs; SCADA system Premium efficiency motors; add’l VFDs Waste heat recovery

Wisconsin Focus on Energy Public-private partnership Encourage energy efficiency Promote use of renewable energy Ensure the future energy supply for Wisconsin Reduce peak loads

Goals and Objectives Obtain Resource Acquisition Promote Market Transformation Promote implementation of EE Encourage adoption of EE practices Involve both end-users and key service and equipment providers Increase end-user demand for EE Provide education and training

State of Wisconsin Wastewater Treatment Facility Sizes

Water/Wastewater Approach Site Surveys How performed Data requested Discussions with Operators Assessment Approach Assessment Report

Understand Electric Demand

Energy Intensive Processes - Aeration Organic treatment BOD Ammonia Mixing Number of diffusers Air flow rate relative to blower size Variable air flow rate to meet demand

Aeration

Energy Intensive Processes - Pumping PUMPING ASSESSMENT Pump performance curve Drive (if applicable) Motor specifications Design information Amp draw (field-measured) Existing flow conditions Discussion with operations personnel System components Static Dynamic – conveyance configuration

Pumping System Efficiency Range of Efficiency Low Ave High Motor 85-95 .85 .9 .95 Drive 20-98 .20 .6 .98 Pump 30-85 .30 Efficiency of System .05 .32 .80 5 to 80%

Energy Savings Obtained Through Installed Projects Northern Moraine

Energy Best Practice Benchmarks

What We’ve Learned Energy Awareness – Management Knowledge of energy use is critical Energy efficiency w/o impact to effluent limits Significant savings available System assessment necessary Savings are long-term Publicize the need for energy efficiency

What We “Also” Learned with Focus Must overcome barriers Designers need to become aware of value Need to address electric charge rates Need to develop more training in energy efficiency Require energy efficiency/education for certification Agencies need to address energy efficiency

W/WW Electricity Use in California Pumping U.S. 75x103 GWh 3% of U.S. Total California 15x103 GWh 6% of the CA Total W&WW Facilities in California Water Facilities 6,000 WW Facilities 1,600 Water Related Electricity Use in California (2001 GWh) Water Supply & Treatment Urban 7,583 3.0% of CA Total Agricultural 2,788 1.1% End Use Urban 28,258 11.2% (Industrial / Comm. / Residential) Agricultural 7,372 3.0% WW Treatment 2,012 0.8% Total 48,013 ~19%

Energy Efficiency Projects Generally Four Categories Conservation  Less Consumption Efficiency -- Focus on Increasing Equipment & Process Efficiency DO Probes in the ASP Efficient Pumps, Blowers, Motors Replacement of Existing Diffusers with Energy Efficient Membrane Diffusion System Motors with High Efficiency Motors and VFDS Coarse Bubble Diffusers with Fine Bubble Diffusers High Efficiency Motors, Microturbines, and Energy Recovery Systems Primary Treatment Modifications Generation -- Using Waste Fuels DG, Use of Digester Gas for CHP Load Shifting -- Shifting Pumping Load to Off-Peak Hours by Increasing Storage Volume, Pumping Capacity, Installing better pumping controls systems

Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program Up to $62 million Annually to Supports Energy RD&D Projects that Help Improving the Quality of Life in California by Bringing Environmentally Safe, Affordable & Reliable Energy Services & Products to the Marketplace. Eligibility: Individuals, Businesses, Utilities, and Public or Private Research Institutions, and RD&D Organizations. Focus Areas: Buildings End-Use Energy Efficiency Environmentally-Preferred Advanced Generation Renewable Energy Technologies Energy-Related Environmental Research Energy Systems Integration Industrial/Agricultural/Water End-Use Energy Efficiency

Energy Innovations Small Grant (EISG) Program Provides up to $95,000 for Hardware Projects & $50,000 for Modeling Projects Demonstration to Establishes the Feasibility of New & Innovative Energy Concepts Eligibility Individuals, Small Businesses, Non-Profits, and Academic Institutions Projects Target One of the Six PIER Program Areas Address a California Energy Problem & Provide a Potential Benefit to California Electric Ratepayers. Up to 4 Solicitations per year.

Energy Partnership Program (EPP) Help Customers on Existing Facilities and Planned Projects Identifies Energy Efficiency Projects as Part of a Comprehensive Energy Program; Identifies State Loans and Other Financing Mechanisms for the Projects Sample Services – Existing Facilities Energy Audits, Feasibility Studies, Reviewing Existing Proposals & Designs, Develop Equipment Performance Specifications, Review Equipment Bid Specifications, Assistance with Contractor Selection, and Assistance with Projects Commissioning On New Construction Provides Design Consultation, Compare Different Technologies, Review Schematics/Construction Plans, Provide Equipment Specification Consultation, Identify Cost-Effective Energy-Saving Measures, Develop Computer Simulation Models of Planned Project, Assistance with Contractor Selection Eligibility Cities; Counties; Special Districts; Public/Non-Profit Hospitals, Public Care Facilities, and Colleges/Universities

Energy Efficiency Financing Program Provides Low-Interest Loans for Implementing Energy Efficiency Projects -- Current Rate: 3.95% Eligibility Same as EPP; Some New Construction may Qualify Terms/Conditions Project must be Technically / Economically feasible; Upto 100% Financing, No Minimum, Maximum $3 million / Application; Loans Repayment Period -- 10 years / 15 Years All loans are secured by a Tax certificate, a promissory note, and a loan agreement between the applicant and the Energy Commission. The funds are available on reimbursement basis. Sample Projects Lighting/Streetlights/LED Traffic Signals; Pumps/Motors/ VFDs, Building Insulation, HVAC Modifications, EMS & Controls, Energy Generation including Renewable Energy Projects and Cogeneration etc.

Summary of Most Commonly-Identified Energy Efficiency Measures (ECM) Aeration Upgrades (e.g., Fine Bubble Diffusers, DO Control, Seasonal Adjustment) Premium Efficiency Motors on Pumps & Blowers Variable Speed/Frequency Drives (VSDs) on Motors, Pumps & Blowers Automated Controls on Blowers and Pumps Resize Pumps or install lag/lead pumps of varying sizes Building Upgrades (Lighting & HVAC) Process Optimization Beneficial Use of Biogas and CHP Demand-side Management

Common Barriers to Energy Efficiency Lack of funding Savings benefit general fund rather than facility More and more stringent regulatory requirements EE seen as a one-time improvement Not mandated Attitude “If it works, why fix it?” “Not my job!”

Conclusions Energy consumption and costs are expected to increase. EE opportunities can be found at most treatment facilities. EE also generates economic, process reliability, and environmental benefits. Win – Win situation Your state energy agencies are there to help!

Questions for Panelists What role should a state agency have in EE implementation? How does EPA’s Energy Star Program play into a state’s energy program? What is better from an EE perspective – retrofitting or new construction? Are there non-energy benefits associated with EE projects?

Questions for Group What level of grant funding is needed to assure EE project success? What is (are) the major obstacle(s) in implementing EE projects? Would an “energy code” be beneficial? Do engineers/consultants have the training/skills to design and implement EE projects?