Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Provisional Standard Protocol Regional Technical Forum November 19, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Residential Refrigerators and Freezers UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum October 14, 2014.
Advertisements

Direction on Guidelines Savings Definition Path Results of straw vote and proposed decisions for elements of the savings definition Regional Technical.
D EEMED M EASURE R EVIEW P ROJECT Final Report December 7, 2010 Regional Technical Forum Presented by: Michael Baker.
Transformer De-Energizing & Dairy Plate Heat Exchanger Standard Protocol Proposal Presentation to the RTF February 20, 2013.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling RTF Staff/CAT Discussion RTF SIS Subcommittee November 20, 2014.
The Saga Continues: Measure Interactions for Residential HVAC and Wx measures Regional Technical Forum April 23, 2014.
Deeming Savings for Ductless Heat Pumps in Manufactured Homes Regional Technical Forum January 4 th, 2011.
Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) for Potato/Onion Shed Fans UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum April 23, 2014.
Commercial Tank Water Heaters Out-of-Compliance (OOC) UES Measure Recommendation Regional Technical Forum November 19, 2013.
Grocery Measure: LEDs for Reach-In Display Cases Regional Technical Forum July 21 st, 2015 Mohit Singh-Chhabra.
Industrial Pump Motor VFDs: Provisional Standard Protocol Christian Douglass Regional Technical Forum 5/12/2015.
Dairy Milking Machine Vacuum Pump VFD Savings Calculator Follow-up from the last RTF meeting with more field data Regional Technical Forum December 7,
Manufactured Homes Calibration: Existing and New Homes Mohit Singh-Chhabra & Josh Rushton RTF Update May 12, 2015.
Commercial Showerhead UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum Staff Update June 18, 2013.
Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Subcommittee Christian Douglass Regional Technical Forum June 18, 2015.
Night Covers on Open Vertical Cases Provisional UES Proposal Presentation to the Regional Technical Forum August 30,
Pump VFD Provisional Standard Protocol Regional Technical Forum June 18, 2013.
Plans to bring Out-of-Compliance UES Measures back into Compliance: 1. Agricultural Irrigation Hardware UES 2. Agricultural Motors UES Regional Technical.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Provisional Standard Protocol Ryan Firestone Regional Technical Forum February 18, 2015.
Implementer’s Group January Meeting Debrief and Upcoming Meeting Prep January 29, 2015.
Guidelines for the Development and Maintenance of RTF- Approved Measure Savings Estimates December 7, 2010 Regional Technical Forum Presented by: Michael.
Overview of the Regional Technical Forum Guidelines January 22, 2013.
Non-Residential Network Computer Power Management UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum July 16, 2013.
Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Small Saver UES Measures Regional Technical Forum September 17, 2013.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling provisional analysis and research plan BPA December 2014.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update Regional Technical Forum June 17, 2014.
Residential Behavior Programs RTF Subcommittee Ryan Firestone September 17, 2015.
0 Study of Irrigation Scheduling Practices in the Pacific Northwest Sponsored by: Bonneville Power Administration, Pacific Northwest Generating Co-Op.,
Agricultural Irrigation Pump Variable Frequency Drive Provisional Standard Protocol Proposal Regional Technical Forum April 16, 2013.
Commercial Showerhead UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum Staff Update June 18, 2013.
Delivery Verification Jennifer Anziano Regional Technical Forum March 17, 2015.
RTF Pump VFD Provisional Standard Protocol Regional Technical Forum June 18, 2013.
Residential Single Family and Manufactured Home Heat Pump Water Heaters Christian Douglass Regional Technical Forum 4/14/2015.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Subcommittee Update Regional Technical Forum June 2, 2014.
Refrigerator Decommissioning: Measure Status Update Regional Technical Forum October 16, 2013.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH  THE PROCESS IN WHICH THE MARKET ESTIMATE IS DERIVED BY ANALYZING THE MARKET FOR SIMILAR PROPERTIES.  A MAJOR PREMISE OF THE.
Anti-Sweat Heater Control Small Saver UES Measure Regional Technical Forum September 17, 2013.
Update: Grocery Refrigeration Provisional Standard Protocol for Site Specific Savings RTF Meeting June 28,
BPA M&V Protocols Overview of BPA M&V Protocols and Relationship to RTF Guidelines for Savings and Standard Savings Estimation Protocols.
SEEM Calibration: Phase II Single Family Heating Energy Regional Technical Forum August 20, 2013 Presented By: Josh Rushton and Adam Hadley Subcommittee.
Commercial Showerhead UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum April 16, 2013.
Schools Lighting Hours of Use Data Regional Technical Forum May 13, 2014.
Research Strategy Review: Advanced Power Strips MH HVAC Related Measures Jennifer Anziano RTF R&E Subcommittee August 6, 2015.
Ultra-Premium Efficiency Motor Standard Protocol Recommendation Regional Technical Forum November 19, 2013.
Standard Protocol Development for Advanced RTU Control Retrofit August 15, 2013 Presentation to: Regional Technical Forum RTUG Subcommittee Sponsored by:
Integration Issues for RTF Guidelines: Savings, Lifetimes and Cost/Benefit October 24, 2012 Regional Technical Forum Presented by: Michael Baker, SBW.
Regional Technical Forum Automated Conservation Voltage Reduction Protocol.
RTF Management Update Jennifer Anziano Regional Technical Forum February 18, 2015.
Guidelines Revisions Defining What RTF Means by “Savings” December 17,
Residential New SF Energy Star Homes UES Measure Update December 17th, 2013.
PTCS Commissioning, Controls & Sizing Update of UES Measure Category and/or Status Regional Technical Forum July 15, 2014.
Ductless Heat Pumps (DHP) in Single Family Homes with Zonal Electric Heat Proven UES Measure Proposal Regional Technical Forum October 16, 2013.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling RTF Staff/CAT Discussion RTF Research and Evaluation Subcommittee December 2, 2014.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Subcommittee Thursday, August pm – 3pm, PDT.
Commercial Clothes Washer UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum April 16, 2013.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Provisional Standard Protocol Ryan Firestone Regional Technical Forum December 8, 2015.
A Reliable but Simplified Method for Measuring the Savings from Advanced RTU Control Retrofits February 13, 2013 Presentation to: RTF Commercial Rooftop.
Residential Refrigerator UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum April 16, 2013.
Idaho and Montana Residential Single Family New Construction Measures Mohit Singh-Chhabra Regional Technical Forum October 20 th, 2015.
ENERGY STAR Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers Regional Technical Forum January 21 st, 2016 Mohit Singh-Chhabra.
RTF Management Updates Jennifer Light Regional Technical Forum January 21, 2016.
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling provisional analysis and research plan BPA December 2014.
Agriculture Irrigation Hardware UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum April 16, 2013.
Residential Single Family Clothes Washer UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum September 16, 2014.
Exterior LED Area Lights
Implementer’s Group December Meeting Debrief and Upcoming Meeting Prep January 6, 2015.
Commercial Efficient Tank Water Heater UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum December 17, 2013.
Residential Behavior-based Programs Measure Development Update Ryan Firestone Regional Technical Forum March 15, 2016.
Ductless Heat Pumps (DHP) in Single Family Homes with Zonal Electric Heat UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum June 17, 2014.
EM&V Planning and EM&V Issues
Presentation transcript:

Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Provisional Standard Protocol Regional Technical Forum November 19, 2013

Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Measure Overview Current Category: RTF Calculator (pre-Guidelines) Current Status: Under review for Guidelines compliance Current Sunset Date: Unclear Reason for Update/Review: Guidelines Compliance Baseline Type: Current Practice Subcommittee ReviewYes 2

Staff Highlighted Areas Findings from 2003 – 2005 Quantec study – Control group not consistent with Guidelines definition of baseline – Significant uncertainty in results Significant subcommittee concerns about staff proposal – Reduction in savings percentage – Provisional data collection requirements – Use of AgriMet for evapotranspiration and precipitation data Provisional data collection is limited to “simple systems” – Single crop – Pump or pumps on dedicated utility meter 3

Subcommittee Participation 4

Measure History – 2005 – Quantec conducts 3-part study of baseline irrigation practices and SIS impacts for BPA. – Concludes that SIS is, on average, 10% more water-efficient than irrigation without water management. January 2006 – RTF approves SIS Calculator – Uses 10% savings estimate from Quantec study November 2012 – Cascade Energy, under RTF contract, proposes a Guidelines-compliant SIS Standard Protocol modeled after the SIS Calculator. – The RTF decides to table a decision until the Guidelines address parameter requirements for Standard Protocols. July/August 2013 – RTF staff and Subcommittee revisit the SIS Standard Protocol. [see Findings upcoming slide] November 2013 – RTF staff present Proposed Provisional Standard Protocol to subcommittee. [see Findings in upcoming slide]

Quantec Study – 2003 to e%20II%20(1).pdf

Quantec Study – Phase 1. Baseline Practices 43% of irrigated acres are irrigated efficiently – Survey of 776 farms across the PNW – Quantec categorized farms according to irrigation decision-making practices 7 “Examination of reported water use and their deviations from known irrigation requirements indicated that, by and large, farms in practice level I tend to use less water than farms that use less sophisticated practices. Comparison of mean water use derived from a regression model of water use showed that application of the combination of methods used in practice levels I and II are likely to result in water savings of approximately 12% and 10%, respectively.”

Quantec Study – Phase 2. Impact Study The impact study compared growers known to use outside SIS services to growers known not to practice water management. I.e. – compare the best to the worst. “It was therefore decided to select the treatment group from among growers who received water management services through GWMA or IRZ Consulting, and to select the control group from farms in close proximity to the treatment farms. The main advantage of this approach was that it offered a more consistent basis for defining water management practices among the treatment group and significantly helped the recruitment and data collection processes. “To ensure comparability with the treatment group, each treatment field was matched with a local control field with the same crop grown by a farmer known not to practice water management.” 8

Quantec Study – Impact Study Analysis – Meter irrigation water use - indirect measurement: log line pressure at point of delivery, multiply by sprinkler design flow rate – Estimate “ideal” water use – use water balance model specific to county-level weather, field soil type, crop type (evapotranspiration rates) – Ideal water use is the normalizing factor for all fields (control and treatment) Findings – Control group used 12% more water than ideal – Treatment group used 2% more water than ideal – Based on this, a 10% water savings for SIS is proposed 9

Measure History 10 July/August 2013 – RTF staff and Subcommittee revisit the SIS Standard Protocol. Findings: – Application of results of Quantec study (savings = 10% of ideal) is not in compliance with the Guidelines, because baseline only considers the least efficient irrigators. – Significant uncertainty in the savings estimates: do not meet the rigor requirements of a Proven RTF measure. – Programs could collect pre-participation data to eventually specify the baseline. – About half of participants have simple enough systems (single crop, dedicated pumps, dedicated meter) to yield useful data for a baseline study. – There is no appetite for an experiment to observe the persistence of savings, which would require restricting participation. One year measure life must be imposed. – Broad range of regional experience on subcommittee: in some regions, SIS programs have been cancelled because everyone’s doing it anyway. In other regions, SIS would not be popular without programs.

Measure History 11 July/August 2013 – RTF staff and Subcommittee revisit the SIS Standard Protocol. Findings: – Application of results of Quantec study (savings = 10% of ideal) is not in compliance with the Guidelines, because baseline only considers the least efficient irrigators. – Significant uncertainty in the savings estimates: do not meet the rigor requirements of a Proven RTF measure. – Programs could collect pre-participation data to eventually specify the baseline. – About half of participants have simple enough systems (single crop, dedicated pumps, dedicated meter) to yield useful data for a baseline study. – There is no appetite for an experiment to observe the persistence of savings, which would require restricting participation. One year measure life must be imposed. – Broad range of regional experience on subcommittee: in some regions, SIS programs have been cancelled because everyone’s doing it anyway. In other regions, SIS would not be popular without programs.

Staff Conclusions 12 Savings estimate should reflect current (as of 2003 Quantec study) practice: – 57% of acres irrigated without water management (10% savings) – 43% of acres irrigated with water management (0% savings) Results from study are not rigorous enough for a proven measure Research is feasible and could lead to a proven measure Research could achieve the following – More certain regional savings estimate – Estimate of the impacts of measure identifier including Location Farm size Water source Irrigation system type – Explore the relationship between AgriMet-based and service-provider reported results

Measure History 13 November 2013 – RTF staff present Proposed Provisional Standard Protocol to subcommittee. Findings: – Concerns Reduced savings in the proposal threatens program cost-effectiveness Additional cost of provisional data collection will further hurt programs Ability to collect provisional data may be hampered by low cost- effectiveness of the provisional measure

Staff Proposal 14

Best Practice Method 15 Proposal: Develop a model that predicts water consumption – relative to gross water requirement (i.e., ideal water consumption) – based on factors such as – Use of SIS services – Crop type – Location – Farm size – Soil type – Total dynamic head Collect pre and post data from existing participants to inform the structure of the model, and to calibrate the model

Best Practice Method 16 1)For pre and post years, determine water consumption relative to gross water requirement. – Pump kWh – from billing data if pump is isolated, otherwise metered – Irrigation system specifics – from interview with participant – Evapotranspiration (as function of crop type, soil type, location, year) – from AgriMet Collect three years of pre data where possible Service provider may recommend a different data source than AgriMet 2)Build a database of this information – Because of crop rotation, pre-data from a single participant is not sufficient to determine savings. – Post-data must be lined up with pre-data of the same crop 3)Use regression techniques to estimate the impact of program participation, holding all else constant (crop type, evapotranspiration, irrigation system, location, farm size) – Impact will be in percentage point difference of ideal water 4)Water savings (acre feet) = [SIS Impact] x [Gross Water Requirement] 5)Energy savings (kWh) = [water savings] x [kWh/acre foot for irrigation system]

Best Practice Method 17 1)For pre and post years, determine water consumption relative to gross water requirement. – Pump kWh – from billing data if pump is isolated, otherwise metered – Irrigation system specifics – from interview with participant – Evapotranspiration (as function of crop type, soil type, location, year) – from AgriMet Collect three years of pre data where possible Service provider may recommend a different data source than AgriMet 2)Build a database of this information – Because of crop rotation, pre-data from a single participant is not sufficient to determine savings. – Post-data must be lined up with pre-data of the same crop 3)Use regression techniques to estimate the impact of program participation, holding all else constant (crop type, evapotranspiration, irrigation system, location, farm size) – Impact will be in percentage point difference of ideal water 4)Water savings (acre feet) = [SIS Impact] x [Gross Water Requirement] 5)Energy savings (kWh) = [water savings] x [kWh/acre foot for irrigation system]

Best Practice Method 18 1)For pre and post years, determine water consumption relative to gross water requirement. – Pump kWh – Irrigation system specifics – Evapotranspiration (as function of crop type, soil type, location, year) Pump kWh Irrigation system Crop type Location Soil type Year Field(s) size Irrigation energy model Evapotranspiration model / Water ratio: Actual to Ideal Actual water consumption Gross water requirement

Best Practice Method 19 2)Build a database of this information – Because of crop rotation, pre-data from a single participant is not sufficient to determine savings. – Post-data must be lined up with pre-data of the same crop This table is for illustrative purposed only, it does not contain real data

Best Practice Method 20 3)Use regression techniques to estimate the impact of program participation, holding all else constant (crop type, evapotranspiration, irrigation system, location, farm size) – Impact will be in percentage point difference of ideal water 4)Water savings (acre feet) = [SIS Impact] x [Gross Water Requirement] where This function will not be known until the database is constructed and analyzed. This is the product of a water balance model.

Best Practice Method 21 5)Energy savings (kWh) = [water savings] x [kWh/acre foot for irrigation system] where

Candidate Simplest Reliable Method 22 Proposal: Estimate water savings as a percentage of the gross water requirement. – Gross water requirement would be specified by the SIS service provider. – Savings percentage would initially be based on the Quantec study. Once a reliable model of savings has been developed, the savings percentage would be determined by using the model.

Candidate Simplest Reliable Method 23 Baseline The current SIS standard protocol uses a 10%-of-ideal estimate of savings. This assumes a baseline comprised entirely of inefficient irrigators. This is not consistent with the RTF Guidelines – “The current practice baseline defines directly the conditions that would prevail in the absence of the program (the counterfactual), as dictated by codes and standards or the current practices of the market.” Guidelines – Roadmap – Section Savings – The baseline is comprised of 57% of acres that are not irrigated efficiently 43% of acres that are irrigated efficiently Estimated 10% savings from SIS Estimated 0% savings from SIS

Candidate Simplest Reliable Method 24 1)Annual Water savings = [gross water requirement] x [SIS Δ% of ideal] – [gross water requirement] = either AgriMet-based or consultant report (to be determined) – [SIS Δ% of ideal] For now, = [10%] x [ 1 – baseline SIS saturation] – 10% savings was estimated by Quantec (2003 – 2005) as the savings of going from inefficient irrigation practices to SIS – [ 1 – baseline SIS saturation] accounts for some participants already using efficient irrigation practices before subscribing to SIS services » 57%, estimated by Quantec ( ) studies – So, for now, the Simplest Reliable Method would be : Annual Water Savings = [Gross Water Requirement]*[10%]*[57%] = [Gross Water Requirement]*[5.7%] Once provisional data has been collected, [SIS Δ% of ideal] will be determined from the regression analysis used in the Best Practice Method

Data Collection Requirements Participant (survey) – Static data Location (county, state) Soil type Irrigation system type Farm size (acres) Pump station information – Annual data (3 years pre, plus participation years) Crop type Modifications to irrigation system (e.g., change in acres irrigated, VFD installed, different sprinkler system) # of acres subject to SIS Utility – Annual pump kWh SIS Consultant – Cumulative evapotranspiration – Cumulative precipitation – Water applied 25

Review Documents Standard Protocol Calculator Research Plan 26

Staff Proposal Approve the SIS Standard Protocol as a provisional measure. Set the measure status to “Active”. Set the sunset date to June 30, Estimate water savings as 5.7% of the gross water requirement. Approve the proposed research plan. Approve the proposed calculator. 27

Decision “I _______ move to: Approve the SIS Standard Protocol as a provisional measure. Set the measure status to “Active”. Set the sunset date to June 30, Estimate water savings as 5.7% of the gross water requirement. Approve the proposed research plan. Approve the proposed calculator. 28