1. Scientific Irrigation Scheduling provisional analysis and research plan BPA December 2014

2. 2 Baseline

3. Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Overview

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

5. Savings are estimated using the SIS calculator. The calculator converts water reduction to kWh savings.

6. The calculator estimates 10% water reduction.

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

8. Regional Technical Forum Review Background

9. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Research Plan

17. Baseline Market Study

18. High-level principles  Water-requirement (the practice) versus actual (the absolute H20)  Population representative baseline  Requires field collection of data

19. 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

20. Population Program Opportunity =

22. lift deficit irrigation crop value

23. program coverage

24. crop rotation mixed fields

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

26. Field Work  Consistency in data collection and data definitions  Safety protocols  Communication protocols

27. Provisional

28. The RTF staff recommendation: 10%* 57%=5.7%

29. First Number to Examine: 10% Water reduction

30. The field data we have from 2005: Sites by Crop, treatment and control untreated treated % water applied from water requirement

31. 31 Variance = ( [actual] – [ideal] ) / [ideal] Impact appears to be on the least efficient irrigators.

32. 10% is a straight average of the treatment and control: sites were not selected randomly or to be representative.

33. 10% is based on data that are not statistically significant.

34. 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 35

36. 57% is self-reported; it doesn’t include all utility territories with irrigated acreage; it is higher than indications from USDA Census data.

37. 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

38. The RTF staff recommendation: 10%* 57%=5.7% Not a market perspective A skewed market perspective Theoretically inconsistent: these #s are apples and oranges

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

40. We can change that we have a poor method.

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

42. Provisional Step 1: Weight the control to the population acres

43. Provisional Step 2: Weight the treatment to the program acres population

44. Step 3: Average % from water requirement for Cadmus sites

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

46. 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