1. Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Provisional Standard Protocol Ryan Firestone Regional Technical Forum December 8, 2015

2. Presentation Outline Today’s Objective: Extend the Sunset Date for the Scientific Irrigation Scheduling (SIS) Standard Protocol measure as Provisional, Active measure Measure Overview SIS Background and recent RTF History 2015/2016 Bonneville SIS Study - Updates Staff Highlighted Areas Proposed Motion 2

3. Measure Overview 3 Measure DevelopersRTF Staff CAT ReviewYes (Ryan Firestone and Team) Tech Sub-Com ReviewBonneville has engaged their own expert group throughout the development of their research protocols. R&E Sub-Com ReviewNot since the research plan has been fleshed out over the past year NotesProvisional Standard Protocol approved in February 2015 Bonneville to collect data on baseline and treatment fields RTF Research Plan describes analysis of this data Sunset date: January 2016 – intended as check in to make sure that details of research had been fleshed out and that research was going forward

4. SIS Background [for additional background, see the June 2014 RTF presentation]June 2014 RTF presentation 4

5. What is SIS? Information on when/how much to irrigate to satisfy crop water requirements and avoid plant moisture stress Tools – soil moisture monitoring – evapotranspiration model specific to crop type, soil type, and local meteorology Traditional methods rely more on look/feel of soil and crops, predetermined watering calendars, and water availability Water savings from irrigation management translate into electricity savings from reduced pumping 5 Slide from Feb. 2015 RTF presentation

6. What is the SIS measure? Application of SIS in irrigation decision-making Can be applied by either a consultant or by the grower Service is provided for a single growing season – soil moisture meters are removed at end of season – crops may rotate from season to season – climatic data will vary from year to year Framed as a Current Practice measure – growers shop for an irrigation strategy each year – no infrastructure left in field from year to year – Baseline = population average – Measure Life = 1 year Water savings expressed as a percentage of Water Requirement – This is a means of normalizing water consumption across crops, weather, and soil type 6 Slide from Feb. 2015 RTF presentation

7. What do we know about SIS savings? 2003-2005 Bonneville SIS Study * 2003: Phone survey of ~800 growers in NW regarding irrigation practices – 43% of irrigated acreage using efficient management practices Caveats: self-reported and at farm level, not field level 2004: Field study of 38 fields – 19 that didn’t use SIS – 19 that did – Fields not randomly selected – 10% average difference in normalized water usage, not statistically significant 7 *referred to in previous RTF presentations as “The Quantec Study” Slide from Feb. 2015 RTF presentation

8. 2015/2016 Bonneville SIS Study Bonneville developing – pilot study conducted in August 2015 – plans to implement study in 2016 – provided the option for other utilities to participate and none of them chose to participate Research and results will be limited to Columbia Basin Measuring Water Consumption and estimating Water Requirement (minimum water) on – random sample of fields [Current Practice Baseline] – all program participants [Efficient Case] Collecting additional data from growers to explain abnormalities in data. E.g.,: – Pump failure – Leaks – Water constraints (drought) 8

9. Bonneville Study – Key Design Elements Objective: Sample size intended to obtain at least 90/10 confidence/precision on Water Consumption (as a percentage of Water Requirement) for the baseline. – Although the RTF recognized the precision of savings (baseline – efficient case) would be significantly less, it agreed that this would be useful research Expert and Stakeholder intensive – Bonneville has consulted with diverse experts across the region throughout the development of their sampling and data collection protocols, and has reported progress to their stakeholders Geo-spatial sampling – SIS consultants and utilities review coordinates and identify growers for contact – Random selection at the field level. This will reduce participant bias and has never been done before. Sample stratification – Two crop groups within the Columbia Basin High Water Management Low/Medium Water Management Categorization based on expert survey on typical water management levels, by crop type – Eligible fields – all crop types, pressurized irrigation 9

10. Updates to Sampling and Data Collection Protocols 10

11. 2015 Bonneville Activities February – completion of draft sampling and data collection protocols for RTF Provisional Standard Protocol proposal Summer – pilot study of all aspects of study – Geospatial sampling – SIS Consultant identification of fields/growers – Participation solicitation – Data collection (Water Usage) Fall – revisions to protocol based on experience in the field and additional discussions with experts and CAT 11

12. Changes to Protocols Since February RTF Approval Sampling: – Southern Idaho stratum remove – [no changes to geospatial sampling, or target sample size for Columbia Basin] Data Collection: – Water Consumption measurement protocol fleshed out: Sites not receiving SIS services: – Option 1: Tipping rain gauge - metered (preferred method) – Option 2: Integrated flow meter – Option 3: Pressure gauge with integrated data logger – Monthly visits to collect/upload data – iPad data collection forms and synchronization software – Soil moisture at start/end of season will not be considered (relatively minor effect, difficult to measure consistently) Sites receiving SIS services (with or without program incentive): – Will provide their typical services to customers (not follow data collection protocol directly) » Typically measured by weekly readings of rain gage – Data reported at end of year in SIS calculator – Water Requirement (minimum water for optimal yield) determination fleshed out Key field-specific dates (e.g., crop emergence, crop initial maturation, harvest) – survey of grower Soil type – USDA Web Soil Survey Weather – most appropriate station determined by Navigant Reference evapotranspiration – AgWeatherNet 12

13. Changes to Protocols Since February RTF Approval Quality Control (Navigant Consulting): – Sites not receiving SIS services: Ride-alongs: One or two with one person from each irrigation consulting firm Review of collected data: review data collected by irrigation consultants the day after it is collected – Check-in with irrigation consultants if anything is questionable or missing – All sites: Monthly check-ins: Navigant will have a team call with all irrigation consultants in the field – Removal of plan for Navigant consultants to visit sites independent of consultants for verification 13

14. Phone Survey During Recruiting 14 RTF Staff encouraged Bonneville to include a phone survey in the recruiting process – Capture self-reported irrigation practices and basic farm characteristics – For those fields subject to both phone and field study, look for correlation between self-report information and Water Consumption – I.e., look for variables in the phone survey that explain some of the variability in the field study data Low cost method of expanding sample size, explaining variability, and updating Current Practice over time RTF did not have a clear consensus on this recommendation Bonneville decided against this – Irrigation consultants are the right people to do recruitment, but are not trained in survey application – Want to ensure the main objective of the call: getting permission for the field study

15. Documents 15 RTF Provisional Standard Protocol [no changes since February approval] RTF Provisional Standard Protocol – Provisional Standard Protocol – Calculator – Research Plan Bonneville – Baseline Field Selection and Recruitment Plan – Baseline Field Data Collection Protocol – Additional documents on Bonneville’s Conduit SIS Research Page – https://conduitnw.org/Pages/Group.aspx?rid=189 https://conduitnw.org/Pages/Group.aspx?rid=189 Overview of Pilot Study SIS Recruitment Weekly Update SIS Data Analysis Plan

16. Staff Highlighted Areas 16

17. Staff Highlighted Areas No standard data collection protocol across all sites – Data Collection Protocol only applies to sites not receiving SIS services (i.e. a portion of the baseline fields and none of the efficient case fields) and may cause results to not be “apples-to-apples” – Bonneville’s rationale: Bonneville used irrigation consultants and industry experts to develop the protocol based on common practice across a majority of irrigation consultants Limited transparency into data for sites receiving SIS services – Data collected via SIS calculator at the end of year – Bonneville’s rationale: leveraging program collected data is common for RTF; without this, study would be too expensive Potential for bias/conflict of interest as SIS Consultants are conducting all data collection – Bonneville’s rationale: QC process for non-SIS sites leveraging program collected data is common for RTF, without this, study would be too expensive bigger potentials for bias in study (e.g., selection bias), not worth mitigating this small one 17

18. Proposed Motion 18

19. Proposed Motion “Extend the Sunset Date for the Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Standard Protocol to January 31, 2018. Keep the category at ‘Provisional’ Keep the status at ‘Active’.” Other options: move measure to Planning, deactivate 19

20. Additional Slides 20

21. Proposed Standard Protocol Best Practice Method – Estimate evapotranspiration (ET) Function of crop type, planting schedule, soil type, weather Methods described in Bonneville Data Collection Protocol appropriate “on average” – Irrigation consultants use methods that are more site-specific (e.g., soil moisture sensing), but hard to standardize – Measure rain – Measure Applied Water As described in Bonneville data collection protocol – Normalized Usage = [Applied Water] / [Water Requirement] – Normalized Water Savings = [Population Usage] - [Site Usage] – Energy Savings = [Normalized Water Savings] x [Water Requirement] x [Water to Energy Conversion] 21 This is the objective of the study

22. Proposed Standard Protocol Candidate Simplest Reliable Method – Determine Water Requirement Estimate ET Estimate rain from local weather – Water savings = [Savings %] x [Water Requirement] – Energy Savings = [Water Savings] x [Water to Energy Conversion] Provisional value for [Savings %] is 10% 22

23. Research Plan CAT/Staff developed a brief research plan to reflect RTF needs for estimating energy savings. – Primarily references the 2015/2016 Bonneville SIS Study – More detail on what analysis is needed after the Bonneville Study to estimate savings for the RTF (see next slide) – CAT/Staff identified limitations of the analysis 23

24. Analysis Simplest reliable method should, on average, estimate electricity savings within 10% of best practice method Candidate approach will be to – 1) estimate average water savings as a percentage of site-specific water requirement – 2) convert this to site-specific electricity savings – Water savings value may need to be adjusted if it leads to bias in energy savings: E.g., if there is correlation between site water savings and lift/pump type/irrigation system type Other models may be considered for a better fit to the data – This will depend on what the data looks like 24