Scientific Irrigation Scheduling provisional analysis and research plan BPA December 2014

2 Baseline

Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Overview

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 Forum Review Background

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

number of units sold kWh consumption per unit lots little the market average

number of sales kWh consumption per unit lots little 96 kWh the market average energy savings

number of sales kWh consumption per unit lots little 96 kWh 149 kWh - 96 kWh= 53 kWh energy savings 149 kWh consumption

number of acres % deviation from water requirement Under WR Over WR the market average

number of acres % deviation from water requirement Under WR Over WR the SIS program average

% deviation from water requirement Under WR Over WR The difference market program

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 Program Opportunity =

lift deficit irrigation crop value

program coverage

crop rotation mixed fields

Grower Recruitment  Coordination with utilities  Unbiased sample vs. realities of recruitment limitations  Providing value proposition for study participation vs. keeping costs lower

Field Work  Consistency in data collection and data definitions  Safety protocols  Communication 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 % water applied from water requirement

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

2005 Study Results Survey Finding: 43% of irrigated acres are irrigated efficiently 35

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 market perspective A skewed market perspective 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

Step 4: Estimate baseline with 43% of treatment, 57% of control Step 5: Review across baseline population scenarios

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 oranges BPA notification period means no change until growing season 2016