1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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, ,000
21.6
61.1 (70.2)
50, ,000
4.7
11.0 (7.2)
> 100,000
69.8
15.6 (9.5)
Values shown in parenthesis include estimated distribution energy use.

7. 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

8. Wastewater Treatment Plants in NYS11 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

9. 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.

10. 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

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

13. NYSERDA’s W/WW Initiative - Results
<100 projects to date
Savings from installed projects - $2.46 and 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

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. State of Wisconsin Wastewater Treatment Facility Sizes

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

20. Understand Electric Demand

21. 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

22. Aeration

23. 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

24. 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%

25. Energy Savings Obtained Through Installed Projects
Northern Moraine

26. Energy Best Practice Benchmarks

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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, % of CA Total
Agricultural 2, %
End Use
Urban 28, % (Industrial / Comm. / Residential)
Agricultural 7, %
WW Treatment 2, %
Total 48,013 ~19%

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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 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.

35. 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

36. 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!”

37. 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!

38. 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?

39. 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?