Energy Efficiency/ Sustainability and Expansion - · PDF fileCalifornia Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0730 805-756-2379 ... o Solar aerators Solar aerators

IRRIGATION

TRAINING &

RESEARCH

CENTER

Sout

hern

Cal

ifor

nia

Edi

son

Winegrape Vineyards and Winery Operations

Energy Efficiency/ Sustainability and Expansion

November 2014 Draft

http://www.itrc.org/reports/wine.htm

Winegrape Vineyards and Winery Operations ITRC Report No. 14-002

Prepared by Dr. Stuart Styles Sierra Layous Sarah Crable Technical Editor – Monica Holman Irrigation Training & Research Center (ITRC) California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0730 805-756-2379 www.itrc.org

Disclaimer: Reference to any specific process, product or service by manufacturer, trade name, trademark or otherwise does not necessarily imply endorsement or recommendation of use by either California Polytechnic State University, the Irrigation Training & Research Center, or any other party mentioned in this document. No party makes any warranty, express or implied and assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any apparatus, product, process or data described previously. This report was prepared by ITRC as an account of work done to date. All designs are conceptual, and cost estimates are subject to final confirmation.

Irrigation Training & Research Center November 2014

IRRIGATION

TRAINING &

RESEARCH

CENTER



Winegrape Vineyards and Winery Operations: Energy Efficiency Sustainability and Expansion

Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Southern California Edison (SCE) provides utility services to the greater southern California area. Vineyards and wineries exist throughout the region, and historical data suggests that that they largely do not utilize incentive programs offered by the utility. Figure 1 shows the extent of the SCE service area.

Figure 1. SCE service area throughout southern California.

As the first phase in a larger study, the Irrigation Training & Research Center (ITRC), located at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, completed a characterization of the vineyard and winery sector as it pertains to energy and water usage in SCE’s service area, including the following major tasks:

1. Identification of vineyard and winery demographics in SCE’s service area. 2. Identification of sustainability and expansion issues in the vineyard and winery

industry in California as they pertain to energy and water usage, and investigation of the extent to which the issues impact the industry. This includes an estimation of energy and water usage by the wine industry.

3. Identification of currently utilized, currently under-utilized, and potential measures used by the industry and incentives offered by the utility (SCE) for energy and water conservation.

Data Sources

Data was gathered through a variety of sources. This included:




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | ii

Industry groups (Wine Institute, California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, Lodi Winegrowers Association, etc.) online resources as well as personal correspondence

PG&E and their wine industry third-party (CLEAResult) online resources and personal correspondence

Other online resources including government websites and databases, California IOU websites, and winery and vineyard websites

Peer-reviewed and/or published articles Summary of Key Findings

1. Approximately 11,900 acres of winegrapes and 180 wineries exist in SCE’s service area (of the 570,000 winegrape acres and 4,100 wineries in California, these account for 2% and 4%, respectively). The map below shows the geographical distribution of grape vineyards (all types) and wineries in California.

Figure 2. Wineries and grape vineyards in California.

2. Wineries and vineyards in SCE’s region use about the same amount of electricity.

Data Sources Grapes: DWR (1995-2012) & USDA NASS (2013) Wineries: TTB (2014)




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | iii

In California, wineries consume about three times the energy that vineyards consume. However, in SCE’s region, wineries and vineyards consume about the same amount of electricity (about 38 GWh per year each). This is likely due to the increased water use by vineyards in central California (where most of the vineyards in SCE’s service area are located) compared to vineyards on the northern coast of California (Napa, Sonoma, etc).

3. A majority (~90%) of the water applied in wine production is used for irrigation. The amount of water required for irrigation varies greatly with location.

Figure 3. Locations of grapes in central and southern California and

SCE’s service area.

4. The top 10% of SCE’s winery customers account for over 80% of the energy

consumed by wineries.

305 gallons of applied water consumed per gallon of wine produced

123 gallons of applied water consumed per gallon of wine produced

+ 2‐20 gallons of water at the winery

Data Sources DWR (1995-2012) & USDA NASS (2013)




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | iv

Figure 4. Electricity use by wineries in SCE’s service area (largest 10% of

accounts are highlighted in red).

Recommendations

Wineries

Because the wineries consume about three times the energy (electricity and gas) that vineyards consume in California, more effort should be placed on energy efficiency measures at wineries.

Because a few wineries (18) account for a majority (80%) of the energy consumption by wineries, the efficiency of these large users should be investigated. The large users are more likely to have dedicated energy efficiency team members. However, if these large users have not instituted energy conservation measures, they provide the highest opportunity for savings.

SCE should target the components with the largest energy use and proven energy savings: o Refrigeration Pipe insulation cold application Refrigeration strip curtains (or other methods to reduce infiltration load from door

closings) HVAC chiller air cooled HVAC rooftop or split system

o Processing Process pumping VFD Process wastewater aerator

o Lighting Lighting indoor high bay fluorescent

Annual Electricity Use 39 GWh




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | v

Lighting indoor linear fluorescent Lighting indoor fixture integrated occupancy sensor

SCE should investigate the following devices for possible future rebates/incentives: o Cold tank insulation Cold tank insulation was a deemed rebate until 2012. It is now considered an

“industry standard practice”. The actual use and economics of cold tank insulation in SCE’s service area should be investigated to determine if rebates/incentives for cold tank insulation should be reinstated.

o Flow meters (for all water/energy using applications) The actual water (and embedded energy) savings associated with flow meters on

devices and processes is not currently known. o Electrodialysis Electrodialysis significantly reduces energy consumption, but significantly

increases water consumption versus cold stabilization. The potential for electrodialysis as an alternative to cold stabilization should be further investigated.

o Solar aerators Solar aerators can be used on wastewater ponds (common at wineries). The

applicability of solar aerators as a deemed rebate should be investigated.

SCE should institute outreach and a third party program specifically for wineries. o PG&E has found success with the Wine Industry Efficiency Solutions (WIES)

program, which is instituted by the third party CLEAResult. The program provides outreach, education, analysis, recommendations, and assistance to wineries for energy conservation efforts. As wineries use specific processes and equipment, a third party that is knowledgeable about those processes/equipment as well as the IOU programs can bridge the gap between the IOU and wineries, providing valuable help to the wineries and saving energy.

Vineyards

Further investigation is required to determine the “makeup” of vineyards in SCE’s service area. o While the individual vineyard accounts are small, it is likely that a few large growers

(or “parent companies”) account for a majority of the winegrape acreage. If this is true, it may be possible to target these parent companies for audits and assistance with energy efficiency measures (if they have not already instituted most measures).

Vineyards consume approximately 90% of the water supplied for wine production at vineyards and wineries.

SCE should investigate the following devices for possible future rebates/incentives: o Flow meters (for all water/energy using applications) The actual water (and embedded energy) savings associated with flow meters on

devices is not currently known. o Cover crops Cover crops may be a viable alternative to wetting roads for dust abatement (and

therefore pest management) that also provide other positive effects. Paving is




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | vi

considered an expensive alternative, not economically viable for most growers. The actual difference in water use between cover crops and wetting roads for dust abatement is not known. The actual viability could be studied further.

SCE should institute a third party program for irrigated agriculture. o The equipment, methods, and requirements for vineyards are similar to the

equipment, methods, and requirements for all irrigated agriculture. A program that targets irrigated agriculture would reach a larger base than a vineyard-specific program, and would provide valuable evaluations, recommendations, and guidance.

o Common areas for energy and water inefficiency include: Malfunctioning nozzles and sprinkler heads Poorly designed/functioning filters Low efficiency pumps/motors at operating conditions Over-irrigation Applying water at a rate that is higher than the soil can accept it without runoff Leaks

o A third party could provide system audits (including pumps, motors, controls, valves, filtration systems, etc.), distribution uniformity and water application/requirement evaluations, analysis, recommendations, and guidance through energy efficiency upgrades.

SCE should target the components with the largest energy use and proven energy savings: o High efficiency pumps and motors o System maintenance




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i Data Sources ................................................................................................................................. i Summary of Key Findings ......................................................................................................... ii Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... iv

Wineries ................................................................................................................................ iv Vineyards ............................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 SCE Program Background .......................................................................................................... 1

Service Area ........................................................................................................................... 1 California’s Wine Industry Background ..................................................................................... 2 Overview of Study ...................................................................................................................... 3

Task 1: Demographics .......................................................................................................4 Vineyards .................................................................................................................................... 4

Acreage in SCE’s Service Area .............................................................................................. 4 Spatial Distribution of Acreage in SCE’s Service Area ......................................................... 6 Average Grape Acreage per SCE Account ............................................................................ 7

Wineries (Processing Plants and Warehouses) ........................................................................... 8 Number of Processing Plants ................................................................................................. 8 Sizes of Processing Plants...................................................................................................... 8 Locations of Processing Plants .............................................................................................. 9

Task 2: Sustainability and Expansion Issues ................................................................11 Water Availability vs. Demographics ....................................................................................... 11

Surface Water Availability ................................................................................................... 11 Groundwater (Aquifer) Health ............................................................................................. 13

Insect and Disease Pressures ..................................................................................................... 15 Irrigation Management to Prevent Excess Vigor ................................................................. 15 Dust Abatement for On-Farm Roads and Vineyards ........................................................... 15

Changing Varieties of Crops ..................................................................................................... 17 Age of Existing Fields ............................................................................................................... 18 Out-of-State and Foreign Competition ...................................................................................... 19 Changing Consumer Preferences .............................................................................................. 20 Energy Prices ............................................................................................................................ 21 Alternative Energy Sources ....................................................................................................... 22

Solar ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Wind ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies ................................................................................ 27

Energy and Water Consumption by Process ............................................................................. 27 Energy Consumption ............................................................................................................ 27 Water Application ................................................................................................................ 33

Task 3: Current and Potential Industry Measures and IOU Incentives ....................34 Measures that the Industry is Currently Taking to Address Energy Sustainability ................... 34 Potential Costs/Benefits for the Measures ................................................................................ 35 Existing Investor-Owned Utility Programs and Incentives ....................................................... 36

Existing Incentives ............................................................................................................... 36 Existing Programs ............................................................................................................... 41

Conclusions and Recommendations ...............................................................................43




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | viii

Wineries .................................................................................................................................... 43 Vineyards .................................................................................................................................. 44

References .........................................................................................................................46

Attachment A. California IOU Winery and Vineyard Rebates and Incentives




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. SCE service area throughout southern California. ................................................................. i Figure 2. Wineries and grape vineyards in California. ......................................................................... ii Figure 3. Locations of grapes in central and southern California and SCE’s service area. .................. iii Figure 4. Electricity use by wineries in SCE’s service area (largest 10% of accounts are

highlighted in red). ............................................................................................................. iv Figure 5. SCE service area throughout southern California ................................................................. 1 Figure 6. American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) (wine-growing regions) in California (from

discovercaliforniawines.com (2011)). ................................................................................. 2 Figure 7. Reported acreage of winegrapes in California and SCE service area (from CDFA

(2014a)). .............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 8. California’s winegrowing regions and SCE’s service area (adapted from

discovercaliforniawines.com (2011)). ................................................................................. 6 Figure 9. Locations of grapes in central and southern California and SCE’s service area. ................... 7 Figure 10. Number of wineries in California 1980-2013 (from Wine Institute (2013) and TTB

(2014)). ................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 11. Cumulative peak power and annual energy use for all winery accounts in SCE’s

service area. ......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 12. Locations of currently registered wineries in central and southern California and

SCE’s service area (from TTB (2014)). ............................................................................. 10 Figure 13. Drought intensity in California as of October 28, 2014. .................................................... 12 Figure 14. Change in drought intensity class in California in water year 2013-2014. ........................ 12 Figure 15. Change in groundwater depths in california over the last three years (from DWR

(2014)). .............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 16. Change in groundwater depths in California over the last ten years (from DWR

(2014).) .............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 17. Acreages of red and white wine grapes from 1993 to 2013 (from CDFA (1994-2013,

2014a).) ............................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 18. Acreages of winegrapes by variety from 2004 to 2013 (from CDFA (2014a)). ................ 18 Figure 19. Year planted for winegrapes in California in 2013 (from CDFA (2014a)). ....................... 18 Figure 20. Gallons of wine produced in the U.S. and California (1995-2012) (adapted from Wine

Institute (2013)). ................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 21. Gallons of wine produced by the world’s top producers (2009-2012) (adapted from

Wine Institute (2013) and TDA (2013)). ........................................................................... 20 Figure 22. Wine consumption per resident in the USA by year (from Wine Institute et al.

(2014b)). ............................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 23. California wine shipments in the USA and abroad, by year (from CDFA (2014b)). ......... 21 Figure 24. California IOU average commercial retail electricity prices by year (from CPUC

(2011)). .............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 25. Monthly average solar potential in SCE’s service area (adapted from NREL (2012a)). ... 22 Figure 26. Average solar potential in California during peak vineyard energy usage months

compared to locations of vineyards. .................................................................................. 23 Figure 27. Average solar potential in California during peak winery energy usage months

compared to locations of wineries. .................................................................................... 24 Figure 28. Installed price (median value) of residential and commercial photovoltaic (PV) solar

systems (1998-2013) (from Barbose et al. (2014)). .......................................................... 25 Figure 29. Average annual wind speed at 30m in California compared to locations of vineyards

and wineries. ..................................................................................................................... 26




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | x

Figure 30. California vineyard and winery energy (electric and gas) Use, 2010 (adapted from Navigant (2013)). .............................................................................................................. 28

Figure 31. 2010 Vineyards and wineries energy sales by IOU (from Navigant (2013)). .................... 28 Figure 32. Electricity use by grape (all type) vineyards in SCE’s service area. .................................. 29 Figure 33. Electricity use by grape (all type) vineyards in SCE’s service area, zoomed view. .......... 29 Figure 34. Cumulative peak power and annual energy use for all vineyard (all types of grapes)

accounts in SCE’s service area.......................................................................................... 30 Figure 35. Electricity use by wineries in SCE’s service area (largest 10% of accounts are

highlighted in red). ............................................................................................................ 31 Figure 36. Breakdown of rnergy use at small/medium, large, and very large wineries (from Wu et

al. (2013)). ......................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 37. Breakdown of energy use at very large, large, and small/medium wineries (Pie

Charts) ((a)-(c) adapted from Wu et al. (2013); (d) from Lee (2011)). ............................. 33 Figure 38. Breakdown of water use by process in Kendall Jackson Winery (from Kendall-

Jackson 2011).................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 39. Measures accounting for electricity and gas savings from PG&E’s WIES program

from 2010-2012 (from CPUC (2014a)). ........................................................................... 39 Figure 40. Benefit-cost ratios of total resource cost (TRC) and program administrator cost (PAC)

from PG&E’s WIES program from 2010-2012 (from CPUC (2014a)). ........................... 40 Figure 41. Distribution of costs from PG&E’s WIES program by quarter from 2010-2012 (from

CPUC (2014a)). ................................................................................................................ 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Winegrape acreage in SCE’s service area. .............................................................................. 5 Table 2. Summary of wine industry institutes and certifications. ....................................................... 35




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | 1

INTRODUCTION

Southern California Edison (SCE) provides utility services to the greater southern California area. Vineyards and wineries exist throughout the region, and historical data suggests that that they do not fully utilize incentive programs offered by the utility. SCE Program Background

SCE provides a variety of services and incentives to vineyards and wineries within its service area. The intent of this study is to characterize the industry as it pertains to SCE’s service area as well as California as a whole, and examine existing and potential energy-saving opportunities for vineyards and wineries within and outside of SCE’s service area (within California) by utilities and third parties. Service Area

Figure 5 shows the extent of the SCE service area.

Figure 5. SCE service area throughout southern California





California’s Wine Industry Background

California’s 570,000 acres of winegrapes and 4,100 wineries produce over 500 million gallons of wine per year, comprising about 90% of US wine production, and nearly 10% of the world’s wine (Wine Institute 2013 and TDA 2013). In California, winegrapes rank fourth in harvested acreage. Additionally, wine is the most valuable finished agricultural product, with a retail value of over $23B (CDFA 2013 and Wine Institute 2014a). Figure 6 shows the American Viticultural Area (AVA)-designated winegrowing regions in California.

Figure 6. American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) (wine-growing regions) in California (from

discovercaliforniawines.com (2011)).

In 2005, with only 1,100 wineries, the California winemaking industry (which excludes vineyards) consumed over 400 GWh of electricity annually; the only electricity-consuming food industry that consumes more energy is fruit and vegetable processing (canning) (Galitsky et al. 2005). The scale and growth of the vineyard and winery industries indicates significant opportunities for energy- and water-saving solutions in California.





Overview of Study

As the first phase in a larger study, the Irrigation Training & Research Center (ITRC), located at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, completed a characterization of the vineyard and winery sector as it pertains to energy and water usage in SCE’s service area, including the following major tasks:

1. Identification of vineyard and winery demographics in SCE’s service area. 2. Identification of sustainability and expansion issues in the vineyard and winery industry

in California as they pertain to energy and water usage, and investigation of the extent to which the issues impact the industry. This includes an estimation of energy and water usage by the wine industry.

3. Identification of currently utilized, currently under-utilized, and potential measures used by the industry and incentives offered by the utility (SCE) for energy and water conservation.





TASK 1: DEMOGRAPHICS

The first task of the study consisted of an analysis of the demographics of wine production in Southern California Edison’s (SCE) service area. For analysis, wine production was divided into two categories: (1) winegrape production (vineyards), and (2) winegrape processing and/or storage/warehousing (wineries). Vineyards

Acreage in SCE’s Service Area

To characterize and estimate the acreage of winegrapes grown in Southern California Edison’s service area, the following sources were examined: Southern California Edison’s Service Area Map USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CropScape),

2013 California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Land Use Survey Data, 1995-2012 CDFA California Grape Acreage Report: 2013 Crop (2014a) The CDFA California Grape Acreage 2013 Crop Report (2014a) provides reported winegrape acreages for each county in California. CropScape provides spatial (GIS) data from satellite images for the locations of grape (not differentiated by type) cropland in California, by year (2013 was used). The California DWR Land Use Survey Data provides spatial (GIS) data from aerial and satellite images as well as visual (on the ground) identification. This data is only done periodically for each county; data used in this study range from 1993 to 2012. So, while the CropScape data is more recent, the DWR data is more accurate. The two sources were used together to estimate the percent of grapes in each county within SCE’s service area. This percent was applied to the county winegrape acreages to estimate the winegrape acreage in SCE’s service area. A summary of the winegrape acreages by county is given in Table 1. There are approximately 11,900 acres of winegrapes in SCE’s service area. Figure 7 depicts the historical acreage of winegrapes in California, as well as the acreage in SCE’s service area in 2013. The winegrape acreage in SCE’s service area constitutes about 2% of the total winegrape acreage in California.





Table 1. Winegrape acreage in SCE’s service area.

Counties in Southern California

Edison Service Area

County‐Wide Percent of County’s Grapes2 in

SCE Service Area

In SCE Service Area

Winegrape Acreage, 20121

Winegrape Acreage, 20131

Estimated Winegrape Acreage, 2012

Estimated Winegrape Acreage, 2013

Kern 18,253 18,191 21% 3,790 3,777

Kings 1,722 2,035 10% 177 209

Los Angeles 143 186 100% 143 186

Orange 1 1 100%3 1 1

Riverside 1,079 1,074 14%4 149 148

San Bernardino 541 486 100%3 541 486

Santa Barbara 16,580 17,331 0.2% 34 36

Tulare 8,227 8,295 84% 6,916 6,973

Ventura 31 37 100% 31 37

Estimated Total 46,577 47,636 11,782 11,853 1 Source: CDFA (2014a) 2 ‘Grapes’ includes wine, raisin, and table grapes. Spatial data retrieved from USDA NASS CropScape (2013) unless indicated otherwise. The percent of all grapes in SCE’s service area in each county is assumed to be proportional to the percent of winegrapes in SCE’s service area in each county.

3 No data is available in CropScape or DWR Land Use Surveys. 100% of acreage is assumed to be in SCE service area as a majority of county is in SCE service area. Significance is small.

4 Spatial data retrieved from DWR Land Use Surveys (1995‐2012), as no data was available in CropScape.

Figure 7. Reported acreage of winegrapes in California and SCE service area (from CDFA (2014a)).

As Figure 7 indicates, the winegrape acreage leveled off in the late 1990’s, and has remained relatively stable since then. This is likely due to an oversupply of grapes that caused some vineyards to convert to other crops. Projections indicate that the acreage will start to increase again in the future (Francioni, 2014).

11,900 acres in SCE’s Service Area





Spatial Distribution of Acreage in SCE’s Service Area

Spatial data was not specifically available for winegrape acreages. However, the following two maps show California’s winegrowing regions compared to SCE’s service area as well as the distribution of all grapes (i.e., wine, raisin, and table) in SCE’s service area.

Figure 8. California’s winegrowing regions and SCE’s service area (adapted from

discovercaliforniawines.com (2011)).

Winegrowing regions

in SCE’s service area





Figure 9. Locations of grapes in central and southern California and SCE’s service area.

Average Grape Acreage per SCE Account

The size of the operation per winegrape grower was not readily available online or from wine groups. For this project, data was provided by SCE on the number of grape (all types) vineyard accounts, as well as annual kWh and peak kW. Combining this data with the acreage of grape (all types) vineyards in SCE’s service area, it is estimated that the average grape acreage per SCE account is 39 acres. Given that this estimate makes the assumption that all grape acreage has an individual SCE account, which is likely not true, the true average grape acreage per SCE account is likely smaller. However, the portion of vineyards with SCE accounts is not known. The data from SCE also showed 1,473 grape (all types) vineyard accounts. Given that approximately 21% of the grape vineyard acreage in SCE’s service area is winegrapes, it can be estimated that there are approximately 310 winegrape vineyard accounts in SCE’s service area. These estimates required assumptions, and the accuracy of the estimates is not known. To provide more accurate data, it could be possible to create a profile of operation sizes by surveying growers in SCE’s service area.

Data Sources DWR (1995-2012) USDA NASS (2013)





Wineries (Processing Plants and Warehouses)

Number of Processing Plants

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau provides information on wine producer and blender permits for California (TTB 2014). A wine producer and blender can produce, bottle, import, or distribute wine. In general, a permittee is, essentially, a winery (where wine is processed and stored). There are approximately 180 wineries currently registered in SCE’s service area. For comparison, the number of wineries in California from 1980 to 2013 is shown in Figure 10. The wineries in SCE’s service area represent approximately 4% of the wineries in California.

Figure 10. Number of wineries in California 1980-2013 (from Wine Institute (2013) and TTB (2014)).

It should be noted that while Figure 7 shows a relatively stable acreage of winegrape vineyards over the last 15 years, Figure 10 shows a sharp increase in wineries over that same time frame. This may be due to an increase in small, boutique wineries, as well as an increase in the import of bulk winegrapes as the source of grapes for some wineries (Francioni 2014). Sizes of Processing Plants

At this time, there is no industry-standard method for characterizing processing plants (wineries) based on size; however, it is widely accepted that technologies, equipment types, and energy usage vary greatly by the size of the winery. Some of the methods that have been used to define winery size include:

1. Tons of grapes crushed per season. This value is typically used in lieu of “annual case production” as many large wineries process a tonnage of grapes but do not bottle the output (wine). This method is used by the ASHRAE Refrigeration Handbook.

a. Small Winery: tens of tons of grapes per season b. Large Winery: hundreds or thousands of tons of grapes per season

Wineries in SCE’s Service Area





2. Capacity of refrigeration system. Specifically, the refrigeration capacity in tons of refrigeration (TR); one TR is defined as the energy removal rate that will freeze one short ton of water at 0°C in one day, which has been conventionally defined as 12,000 Btu/hr. Since the capacity of the refrigeration system is mainly based on the amount of grapes being processed, the refrigeration capacity is an indicator of the production capacity (tons of grapes processed). This method was used by LBNL in the BEST Winery Guidebook (a guide to benchmarking energy and water use at a winery), as well as Base Energy to characterize wineries audited.

a. Small/Medium Winery: refrigeration system less than 100 TR b. Large Winery: refrigeration system equal to or more than 100 TR c. Very Large Winery: refrigeration system over 2,500 TR

3. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) characterizes businesses based on annual energy use and peak power use in kW.

a. Small/Medium: less than 500,000 kWh/year or 200 kW peak b. Large: more than 500,000 kWh/year or 200 kW peak

The 180 “wineries” and “wine and distilled alcoholic beverage wholesalers” accounts are ordered by peak power use in Figure 11. Cumulative peak power use is shown in blue, and cumulative annual energy use is shown in red. Of the 180 accounts in SCE’s service area, 162 (90%) qualify as small/medium (3a), and 18 (10%) qualify as large (3b). These 18 largest accounts consume over 75% of the cumulative peak power use and over 80% of the total annual energy use.

Figure 11. Cumulative peak power and annual energy use for all winery accounts in SCE’s service area.

Locations of Processing Plants

Figure 12 shows the registered addresses (with the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau) of wine production facilities in the state of California. The registered address may not be the physical address of the facility, but (in general) gives a relative location of the facility.

“Large” customers





Figure 12. Locations of currently registered wineries in central and southern

California and SCE’s service area (from TTB (2014)).





TASK 2: SUSTAINABILITY AND EXPANSION ISSUES

Water Availability vs. Demographics

Surface Water Availability

Figure 13 shows the drought levels in California as of October 28, 2014. These values are developed by the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), and are based on a variety of factors including soil moisture modeling, USGS stream flows, precipitation, snowfall, and local observations. A large portion of California (58%) and essentially all of the grape acreage in California is in Drought Intensity D4: Exceptional Drought. Figure 14 shows the change in drought intensity class over the 2013 to 2014 water year (October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014). Most of California was degraded in drought class (drought severity increased), with a small portion in southeastern California improving by one class. All of the vineyard and winery areas in SCE’s service area degraded at least one class over the water year.





Figure 13. Drought intensity in California as of October 28, 2014.

Figure 14. Change in drought intensity class in California in water year

2013-2014.

Data Sources Grapes in California: DWR (1995-2012) & USDA NASS (2013) Wineries in California: TTB (2014) Drought Class Change: NDMC (2014b)

Drought Class Change is over Water Year 2013‐2014

Data Sources Grapes in California: DWR (1995-2012) & USDA NASS (2013) Wineries in California: TTB (2014) Drought Class: NDMC (2014a)

Drought Class is as of October 28, 2014





Groundwater (Aquifer) Health

Figure 15 shows the groundwater level change over the past ten years (Spring 2004 to Spring 2014) (DWR 2014). Groundwater health is currently a major issue. In 2013, the second year of a drought, vineyards reported record yields (CDFA 2014a and CDFA 2014b). This is likely due to unsustainable groundwater pumping.





Figure 15. Change in groundwater depths in california over the last three years (from DWR (2014)).

Figure 16. Change in groundwater depths in California over the last ten years (from DWR (2014).)

Groundwater Level Change2011 to 2014 (ft)

< 40- Decreasing 0 Increasing > 40+

Groundwater Level Change2004 to 2014 (ft)

< 40- Decreasing 0 Increasing > 40+





Insect and Disease Pressures

Two areas of focus for integrated pest management that require water use are: 1. Irrigation management to prevent excess vigor 2. Dust abatement for on-farm roads and vineyards

Irrigation Management to Prevent Excess Vigor

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to managing pests with a combination of cultural, biological, and chemical tools to minimize economic, health, and environmental risks (University of Minnesota 2011, EPA 2014). Understanding and managing the ecology and dynamics of the crop, the pests, and the natural predators of pests are essential to a vineyard’s IPM program. Both vineyard and irrigation management are key to a vineyard’s IPM program as well. For organic or sustainable winegrowing, where minimal-to-no chemicals are used for pest management, an emphasis is put on understanding pest ecology, managing crop canopy cover, and irrigation and nutrient management. Over-irrigating and improper nutrient management can produce excessively vigorous vines. Vines that are “pumped up on water and nitrogen are very attractive to leaf hoppers, powdery mildew, and bunch rot” (McGourty 2008). Proper nutrient management can be combined with proper water management. There are two situations where vines can be over-watered: 1. Over-irrigation of the entire field due to insufficient water management. The overall

amount of water applied to the field (either by precipitation or irrigation) exceeds the amount of water required by the plants. This issue can be remedied by better water management. If the excess water occurs during “wet” months, a cover crop can be grown during the “wet” months to “devigorate” the vines by providing root competition for nutrients and water (McGourty 2008 and Guerra 2010).

2. Over-irrigation of portions of the field due to poor distribution uniformity. The overall amount of water applied to the field (either by precipitation or irrigation) may or may not exceed the amount of water required by the plants, but the water is applied unevenly. This means some plants receive more water than others. This issue can be identified by performing distribution uniformity evaluations of vineyard irrigation systems; the evaluation should identify specific causes and solutions.

A rebate or incentive for performing irrigation system evaluations, including DU evaluations, will provide growers with the capability to identify leaks or areas in vineyards that are being over-irrigated and aid in reducing the vigor of vines, which can attract unwanted pests. Dust Abatement for On-Farm Roads and Vineyards

Dust problems in vineyards can provide habitat for mites, introduce soil-borne pests at harvest, diminish chlorophyll production, and produce problems for vineyard equipment or vehicles (Wine Business Monthly 2009). Mites, leafhoppers, and mealbugs are the three main pests in California vineyards (Guerra 2010). Mitigating dust in vineyards is essential to managing mites (Karban and Zalom 1998).





The Lodi Rules for Sustainable Winegrowing Standards (by the Lodi Winegrape Commission, 2013) identified typical grower solutions for dust abatement for mite management: 1. Vegetative cover on roads and avenues 2. Paved or graveled roads and avenues 3. Oil alternative sealant (e.g., Soil-Sement®, EnviroKleen®, etc.) applied to roads and

avenues 4. Oil, water, or magnesium chloride on roads and avenues Applying water to roads and avenues may be the easiest measure for growers to use in dust abatement but is not sustainable when water availability is a concern. Although paving or using gravel on vineyard roads would be ideal for dust suppression, it is costly for growers to implement and does not result in the diverse benefits provided by cover crops in regards to IPM. Utilizing cover crops provides an alternative habitat and food for “beneficials” or predatory pests as well as prey, and has been reported to assist in reduced leafhopper and mite problems (McGourty 2004). In sloped vineyards, where soils may be eroded by significant wind, cover crops can allow for better water infiltration of soils, preventing further erosion of soils (Skinkis 2014). Weed management is also a part of a successful IPM and selection of cover crops that are persistent and competitive with weeds assists in weed management along the vineyard floor (McGourty 2004). Additionally, at the end of their life cycle, cover crops can be plowed back into the fields, returning nutrients to the soil. Proper cover crop selection is site-specific and essential to ensure that the cover crop is not competitive with young vines in the first few years of growth (UC Davis IMP 2008). While cover crops provide a variety of benefits, the actual difference in water use for cover crops versus water applied to roads for dust abatement is not well established. Further research could be performed to determine this, as well as the viability of a rebate or incentive for adding cover crops to vineyard rows and around vineyard avenues or roads.





Changing Varieties of Crops

Figure 17 shows the distribution of red and white wine grape acreage in California over a period of 20 years. While the white wine grape acreage has remained fairly steady, the red wine grape acreage increased significantly from 1993-2003, but has seen relatively little growth since 2003. The current distribution is about 60% red wine and 40% white wine.

Figure 17. Acreages of red and white wine grapes from 1993 to 2013 (from CDFA (1994-2013, 2014a).)

The continued shift to red wines may be considered beneficial from a water use standpoint. In general, the quality of red wine grapes has been shown to improve under regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) (Prichard et al. 2004, Prichard et al. 2008). Specifically, the berry sizes are smaller, which results in a higher skin-to-pulp ratio (Goldammer 2013), increasing the color and character of the wine. However, the smaller berries also result in reduced yields. At 60-70% of full potential seasonal vine water use, red wine grapes reduce yields by approximately 3-19%, but quality is improved significantly. Red wine grapes have been shown to maximize quality at 35-60% of full potential seasonal vine water use (Prichard et al. 2004). Like red wine grapes, white wine grapes develop more tannins and color at high water deficit levels. However, unlike red wine, these traits are not considered desirable in white wine. While results vary significantly, some studies have shown that white wine grapes can maximize yield at about 60-70% of full potential seasonal vine water use without significantly affecting quality. At more significant deficit, the white wine grapes’ quality diminishes. Figure 18 shows the acreage of winegrapes in California by variety. Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon have remained the most popular varieties for the past ten years. Pinot Noir has seen a marked increase since 2008. French Colombard has seen a steady decline over the past ten years, while other varieties of white wine have seen a steady increase.





Figure 18. Acreages of winegrapes by variety from 2004 to 2013 (from CDFA (2014a)).

Prichard et al. (2004) noted that some red grape varieties respond differently to deficits. Merlot was found to be more sensitive to deficits, while Cabernet Sauvignon and Zinfandel (the two red wine grape varieties with the most acreage in California) were found to be more tolerant, and to produce wine with more character under increased water stress. No other resources were found that indicate significant water consumption variation between winegrape varieties. In general, water consumption is more a function of canopy. Age of Existing Fields

The age of winegrapes in California is provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) yearly. Grapes are classified by the year they were planted over the previous eight years, with the rest classified as eight years or older. Figure 19 shows the breakdown for winegrapes in 2013. As is evident in the chart, most (83%) winegrapes are more than eight years old.

Figure 19. Year planted for winegrapes in California in 2013 (from CDFA (2014a)).

non-bearing





Winegrape vines under three years old typically do not bear fruit and are considered immature. The water consumption for non-fruit bearing vines is significantly less than mature vines (50-70% of the mature vine water consumption) (ITRC 2014).

Out-of-State and Foreign Competition

As previously stated, California wine accounts for about 90% of the wine produced in the USA and 10% of the wine produced in the world. California is the fourth-largest producer of wine in the world (behind Italy, France, and Spain). Figure 20 shows annual wine production in the U.S. from 1995-2012. California’s share slipped from 91% in 1995 to 88% in 2012; however, production has increased in both California and the U.S. as a whole. Figure 21 shows California’s portion of the world’s wine production from 2009-2012. California’s portion has hovered just below 10%.

Figure 20. Gallons of wine produced in the U.S. and California (1995-2012) (adapted from Wine Institute

(2013)).





Figure 21. Gallons of wine produced by the world’s top producers (2009-2012) (adapted from Wine

Institute (2013) and TDA (2013)).

Changing Consumer Preferences

Figure 22 shows American consumption of wine increasing considerably over the 80 years between 1935 and 2014. The sharp decline in the late 1980s is possibly due to the “baby bust” that followed the “baby boom” generation reaching legal drinking age in the 1970s and 1980s. Additionally, consumer preference temporarily shifted away from wines for alcohol consumption (Sumner et al. 2001).

Figure 22. Wine consumption per resident in the USA by year (from Wine Institute et al. (2014b)).

Figure 23 shows historical rates of California wine shipments in the USA and abroad since 1998. Both markets are steadily increasing. While the USA constitutes a majority of the market, shipments abroad are steadily becoming a larger portion of the total market.





Figure 23. California wine shipments in the USA and abroad, by year (from CDFA (2014b)).

Energy Prices

Figure 24 shows historical average bundled electricity prices for agricultural customers from the three major electricity-providing Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) in California from 2000-2011.

Figure 24. California IOU average commercial retail electricity prices by year (from CPUC (2011)).





Alternative Energy Sources

Solar

Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels can convert solar energy to electricity for vineyards and wineries. Solar water heating systems can heat water using solar energy (hot water is required for a variety of winemaking processes). Wineries consume about three times the energy that vineyards consume, and vineyards and wineries use energy at different times of the year. Vineyards use the most energy in June and July, while wineries use the most energy in August, September, and October (Navigant 2013 and Cadmus 2009). Wineries typically have ample roof space for solar systems, making the siting potential for solar systems at wineries much higher than for vineyards. The following graph shows the average solar potential by month in SCE’s service area. The EPA recommends a site have a solar potential of at least 3.5 kWh/m2/day (“minimum value”) (EPA 2012); this value is also shown on the graph.

Figure 25. Monthly average solar potential in SCE’s service area (adapted from NREL (2012a)).

As the graph shows, the potential for solar is high in both the vineyards’ peak energy use period (June/July) and the wineries’ peak energy use period (August/September/October) (both are over twice the EPA minimum value). Figure 26 overlays the locations of vineyards in California with the average solar energy potential in June and July. Solar energy data was retrieved from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at the 10 km resolution level. The map shows high potential for solar at vineyards in the San Joaquin Valley and Temecula Valley regions. The siting potential at vineyards may be low, as there are usually no available roofs, and available ground space is used for vines. Wineries have roof space above their facilities as well as ground space where the leach field is located (if a leach field is used).

Annual Average

EPA Minimum Value

Peak Vineyard Energy Use

Peak Winery Energy Use





Figure 26. Average solar potential in California during peak vineyard energy usage months compared to

locations of vineyards.

Figure 27 overlays the locations of wineries in California with the average solar energy potential in August, September, and October. Solar energy data was retrieved from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at the 10 km resolution level. This map shows that the potential for solar power at wineries in SCE’s service area is high. The map shows a very high potential for solar power at wineries in the greater Lancaster area, and high potential for wineries in the San Joaquin Valley and Temecula Valley regions.

Temecula

Valley

San

Joaquin

Valley

Data SourcesGrapes in California: DWR (1995‐2012) & USDA NASS (2013) Solar Potential: NREL (2012a) 10 km resolution, with June, July average values from 1998‐2009.





Figure 27. Average solar potential in California during peak winery energy usage months compared to

locations of wineries.

Most of the solar incentives in California have been exhausted. However, the price of solar has reduced considerably over the past 15 years. According to data from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the installed price of residential and commercial photovoltaic (PV) solar systems has reduced by more than 50% over the past 15 years.

Temecula

Valley

San

Joaquin

Valley

Data SourcesWineries in California: TTB (2014) Solar Potential: NREL (2012a) 10 km resolution, with Aug, Sept, Oct average values from 1998‐2009.

Greater

Lancaster Area





Figure 28. Installed price (median value) of residential and commercial photovoltaic (PV) solar systems

(1998-2013) (from Barbose et al. (2014)).

Wind

Figure 29 overlays the locations of vineyards and wineries in California with the average wind speed at 30m above the ground surface (this is generally considered the location of wind turbines for small-scale businesses, farms, and residential projects). Wind speeds were retrieved from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Locations with wind speeds over 4 meters per second are considered viable for wind turbine energy generation. This map shows that the potential for wind energy generation at vineyards in SCE’s service area is low. However, the map does show a high potential at the wineries located in the greater Lancaster area (shown on the map).





Note: The average wind speeds indicated on this map are model‐derived estimates that may not

represent the true wind resource at any given location. Small terrain features, vegetation, buildings, and atmospheric effects may cause the wind speed to depart from the map estimates. Expert advice should be sought in placing wind turbines and estimating their energy production.

Figure 29. Average annual wind speed at 30m in California compared to locations of vineyards and wineries.

California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) provides incentives to self-producers. The current incentive for wind turbines is $1.13/W.

Data SourcesGrapes in California: DWR (1995‐2012) & USDA NASS (2013) Wineries in California: TTB (2014) Wind Speed: NREL (2012b) Wind resource estimates developed by AWS Truepower, LLC. Web: http://www.awstruepower.com. Map developed by NREL. Spatial resolution of wind resource data: 2.0 km.

Greater Lancaster Area





Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies

Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies provide wineries with a number of desirable outputs. These technologies can treat wastewater, use biogas (a wastewater treatment byproduct), and generate energy. The three current technologies with a high potential for application at wineries are: (1) Biogas-powered Fuel Cells, (2) Microbial Fuel Cells (MFC), and (3) Microbial Electrolysis Cells (MECs). The first two options are fuel cells. Essentially, fuel cells operate like batteries, producing an electric current from a chemical reaction. Unlike batteries, fuel cells do not have a fixed supply of energy, and can continue to operate as long as fuel is supplied. Biogas-powered fuel cells use the biogas that results from anaerobic digestion in wastewater treatment as the input fuel. This is a well-established technology, and is used at over 12 wastewater treatment plants in California (including the cities of San Diego and Tulare). The second and third technologies are still emerging. MFCs convert the soluble organic matter in wastewater to electricity (and also treat the wastewater). MECs convert the soluble organic matter in wastewater to a storable energy such as hydrogen (and also treat the wastewater). MFCs and MECs have been shown to reduce the required treatment of the wastewater and can have a net reduction on the energy consumed when used in place of activated sludge (an energy-intensive aerobic wastewater treatment process) (Cusick et al. 2010). A study by Penn State comparing the monetary feasibility of MFCs and MECs at wineries and domestic wastewater treatment plants found that the energy recovery and organic removal from wastewater can be more effective with MFCs than MECs, but that hydrogen production from wastewater-fed MECs can also be cost-effective (Cusick et al. 2010). Napa Wine Company of Oakville, California (with the help of Penn State) installed a pilot system that uses an MEC system on the wastewater to produce hydrogen (Cusick et al. 2011). California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) provides incentives to self-producers. The incentives range from $1.83/W (fuel cells and other advanced energy storage) to $3.45/W (biogas-fed fuel cells). Energy and Water Consumption by Process

The two main energy and water consuming processes in wine production are irrigation (vineyard) and processing/storage (winery). The next sections attempt to characterize the energy and water use within these two categories with current, readily available data. The actual breakdowns can vary depending on the equipment used, practices instituted, size of the operation, as well as many other factors. Energy Consumption

According to a study by Navigant Consulting in 2013, vineyards accounted for 2.9% and wineries accounted for 9.9% of the total energy (MMBTU, electric and gas) consumed by the agricultural sector in 2010. Figure 30 shows a breakdown of the energy use.





Figure 30. California vineyard and winery energy (electric and gas) Use, 2010 (adapted from Navigant

(2013)).

Figure 31 shows energy sales to vineyards and wineries by IOUs in 2010.

Figure 31. 2010 Vineyards and wineries energy sales by IOU (from Navigant (2013)).

Data provided by SCE showed vineyards served by SCE use about 38 MWh of electricity annually and wineries served by SCE use about 39 MWh of electricity annually. The more equal distribution in SCE’s territory may be due to the higher water use at vineyards in central California (where most of the vineyards in SCE’s service area are located) compared to northern California (Napa, Sonoma, etc). Vineyard Irrigation

The energy consumed at a vineyard depends largely on the water source, irrigation method, filtration system, and farming practices used.

Vineyards and Wineries, 2010 (9.7 × 106 MMBtu)





For this project, data was provided by SCE on the number of grape (all types) vineyard accounts, as well as annual kWh and peak kW. The total annual electricity used by grape vineyards in SCE’s service area is 179 MWh. Assuming the energy use is proportional to the portion of grape acreage that is specifically winegrapes, winegrape vineyards may use about 38 MWh annually. The entire grape vineyard data is shown in Figure 32 - Figure 34.

Figure 32. Electricity use by grape (all type) vineyards in SCE’s service area.

Figure 33. Electricity use by grape (all type) vineyards in SCE’s service area, zoomed view.





Figure 34. Cumulative peak power and annual energy use for all vineyard (all types of grapes) accounts in SCE’s service area.

The general conclusions from this data are: Some users have very high peak loads compared to their annual electricity use. These

users may have a high potential to reduce their peak loads. The top 4% of users consume over 500,000 kWh/year each, and the top 20% of users

consume over 200,000 kWh/year each. Unlike wineries, (shown in Figure 11), the distribution of power and energy at

vineyards does not show a few large accounts consuming a majority of the power and energy use.

Wineries

For this project, data was provided by SCE on the number of “winery” and “wine and distilled alcoholic beverage wholesaler” accounts (here forward referred to as simply “wineries”), as well as annual values of kWh and peak kW. There were a total of 180 accounts, and they consumed approximately 39 GWh annually. The total annual energy used by each account is shown below. The 18 largest accounts (top 10%) consume over 80% of the total energy consumed annually by wineries (highlighted in red in the figure below). These wineries could be targeted for auditing.





Figure 35. Electricity use by wineries in SCE’s service area (largest 10% of accounts are highlighted in

red).

Two sources were found with general winery energy usage data. Base Energy, Inc. (Wu et al.) presented a study in 2013 that performed an energy audit on five small/medium wineries, 22 large wineries, and six very large wineries (size was based on refrigeration unit size). A summary of the energy usage for each type of winery is given below.

Energy Use

Annual Electricity Use 39 GWh





Note: For very large wineries, the electrical energy consumption of HVAC is very minimal and is included under Miscellaneous for some of the assessed facilities; also, the wastewater treatment systems were not included for half of the assessed wineries.

Figure 36. Breakdown of rnergy use at small/medium, large, and very large wineries (from Wu et al. (2013)).

A second source gave a typical breakdown of energy use at wineries (not differentiated by size). The Base Energy (Wu et al. 2013) study is shown in Figure 37 as a pie chart, with the data from the Lee presentation (2011). The values are comparable; in both studies ‘Refrigeration’ was the largest consumer of energy, followed by lighting, compressed air, and processing (motors and crush motors in the Lee study). It should be noted that the percent of energy used by the HVAC system in small/medium wineries was considerably higher than in large and very large wineries.

Note: For very large wineries, the electrical energy consumption of HVAC is very minimal and is included under Miscellaneous for some of the assessed facilities; also, the wastewater treatment systems were not included for half of the assessed wineries.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

General Winery Estimate

Energy Use

Energy Use

Energy Use

Energy Use





Figure 37. Breakdown of energy use at very large, large, and small/medium wineries (Pie Charts) ((a)-(c) adapted from Wu et al. (2013); (d) from Lee (2011)).

Water Application

Vineyards

Water requirements in vineyards vary greatly by location, age of grapes, canopy, cover crop, etc. However, as an estimate1, in an average year in the southern San Joaquin Valley, mature, bearing vineyards will consume about 60 gallons of irrigation water to produce one bottle of wine, or 305 gallons of applied irrigation water consumed per gallon of wine. In the Temecula area, about 24 gallons of applied irrigation water would be consumed for one bottle of wine, or 123 gallons of applied irrigation water consumed per gallon of wine. Wineries

Wineries typically use anywhere from 1.5 to 20 gallons of water per gallon of wine produced. The “industry standard” for an efficient winery is considered to be 6 gallons of water per gallon of wine produced. However, it is possible to use 2-3 gallons of water per gallon of wine produced (Franson 2008 and Galitsky et al. 2005). The following chart is a breakdown of water use by process in the Kendall Jackson Winery. The values were determined through a water audit as part of a pilot program with PG&E.

Figure 38. Breakdown of water use by process in Kendall Jackson Winery (from Kendall-Jackson 2011).

1 Using data from ITRC (2014). This assumes a typical year, drip irrigation, 50% with cover crop, in ET zones 12 and 14 (southern San Joaquin Valley) or ET zones 6 and 9 for Temecula. This value is the water consumed by evapotranspiration (ET) less the precipitation; it does not include water that deep percolates into the ground table, runs off as surface water, etc. This excludes water used for frost protection or dust reduction.

Water Use





TASK 3: CURRENT AND POTENTIAL INDUSTRY

MEASURES AND IOU INCENTIVES

The intent of Task 3 was to investigate the current measures instituted and incentives offered in California. In general, there are “sustainable” certifications as well as guidance, assistance, and recommendations offered by institutes, and rebates, incentives, and third-party assistance offered by IOUs. Measures that the Industry is Currently Taking to Address Energy Sustainability

There is a variety of measures that the industry is currently taking to address energy sustainability. For example, there are multiple private institutes and organizations in California that provide advice, assistance, education, and certifications to vineyards and wineries that increase their sustainability. The largest organizations are:

The Wine Institute California Sustainable Winegrowers Alliance California Association of Winegrape Growers

These three institutes work together, and created a sustainability certification program for all wineries and vineyards in California, called “CCSW-certified”. There are a number of other regional organizations that either offer or plan to offer certifications. The most common standards are listed in Table 2 on the next page. Additionally, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in conjunction with Fetzer Winery developed a water and energy benchmarking tool for wineries called “BEST-Winery: Benchmarking and Energy and Water Savings Tool” in 2005 (Galitsky et al. 2005). The tool allows wineries to keep track of energy and water use, compare values, and evaluate energy- and water-saving measures.





Table 2. Summary of wine industry institutes and certifications.

California Sustainab

le

Winegrower Association

Lodi W

inegrap

e Growers

Central Coast Vineyard

Team

Nap

a Green

Sonoma County

Winegrowers

Commission

Region California Lodi Area Central Coast Napa County Sonoma CountyYear Established 2010 2005 2008 2007 ‐Sustainability Certification “CCSWa‐

Certified” “CertifiedGreen”

“SIPb‐Certified”

“Napa Green Certified”

InProgress

Wineries Certified 77 N/A N/A 35c ‐ Vineyards Certified 212 74 145 76 ‐ Certified Vineyard Acresd 79,782 26,000 34,000 17,000 ‐Certified Cases (in millions) 137 Unk. 1.4 3.3 ‐Self‐Assessment or Published Standards

California Codeof Sustainable Winegrowing Workbook

LodiRules

SIPStandards

Noe Refersto

CSWA

Process Water Components Yes ‐ Yes ‐

Irrigation Water Components Yes Yes Yes Yes ‐

Energy Components Yes Yes Yes Yes ‐

Resource Library Yes Yes Yes ‐ ‐

Workshops/Presentations Yes Yes Yes ‐ ‐a CCSW: Certified California Sustainable Winegrowing. This program is based on the Lodi Rules (Lodi Winegrape Growers Certification Program)

b SIP: Sustainability in Practice c Wineries are certified based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Green Business Program for wineries. d Note that wineries and/or vineyards can have multiple certifications e Standards and/or self‐assessment are not readily available on organization’s website

Potential Costs/Benefits for the Measures

The energy and power savings generated from outreach and education provided by the industry groups is not easily quantifiable. The California Sustainable Winegrowing Program has worked in conjunction with PG&E. Through this alliance, as of 2012, there had been more than 50 energy efficiency workshops attended by more than 1,400 people, and 520 energy efficiency projects have been installed at 350 wineries. PG&E had paid $37.6M in rebates for projects that are estimated to save 200 GWh of electricity and 4,000 therms of natural gas over the lifetime of the projects (CSWA 2014). In the first four years, the program showed a 20-fold increase in self-audits, a 5-fold increase in energy efficiency projects, and a 3-fold increase in paid PG&E rebates and incentives.





Existing Investor-Owned Utility Programs and Incentives

Existing Incentives

Of the four Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) (PG&E, SCE, SCG, and SDG&E) in California, PG&E is at the forefront for assistance and incentives offered to vineyards and wineries. This is likely due to the fact that most vineyards and wineries are located in PG&E’s service area. Wineries are a major agricultural energy consumer, consuming about 10% of the total energy used by agricultural users in California. All three IOUs offer four main types of incentives to customers: 1. Core “deemed” rebates (also called “catalog”, “express”, or “prescriptive” rebates).

These rebates are defined statewide. They consist of common energy efficiency retrofits with well-defined energy and demand savings. The savings are defined as dollars per unit.

2. Calculated Incentives (also called customized retrofits). These require pre-approval; incentives are based on established baseline and IOU-approved energy savings. There are defined rebate amounts (in dollars per energy unit saved) by process type (lighting, HVAC, etc.). Incentives can cover up to 50% of project implementation cost. There are two types of calculated incentives:

a. Retrofit. Installation of energy efficient components. Typical projects include: i. Energy efficient motors

ii. VFDs iii. Controls iv. Aerators for wastewater ponds v. Dissolved oxygen sensors for wastewater ponds

vi. Air compressor upgrades and replacements

b. Retrocommissioning and Monitoring-Based Commissioning. Optimization of performance of a facility’s existing equipment, lighting controls, process or control systems. These are only applicable to high energy use facilities.

3. New Construction. The “Savings by Design” program is offered by all of the IOUs in California for new construction projects. The programs offer free design assistance and calculated project incentives.

4. Demand Response. A variety of programs are available to customers to help reduce demand. Some of the incentives offered include automated demand response systems, permanent load shifts, and pumping interruption during periods of critical demand.

The deemed rebates and calculated incentives applicable specifically to wineries and vineyards are listed in the two tables found in Attachment A. This is not an exhaustive list; it is meant to compare the applicable rebates offered by the IOUs.





Data from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (2014a) was used to analyze the projects instituted under PG&E’s WIES program. Figure 39 shows the energy savings from electricity-saving and natural gas-saving measures, as well as the demand reduction in MW. The savings are calculated over the lifetime of the device/measure. Figure 40 shows two methods for estimating the effectiveness of a measure: total resource cost (TRC) and program administrator cost (PAC). Both values are a ratio of the benefit to the cost; therefore, values greater than one indicate an overall benefit, and values less than one indicate an overall cost. From a CPUC paper on the demand-side cost-effectiveness tests (2014b): Total Resource Cost Test:

The Total Resource Cost test … is the measure of cost-effectiveness from what is sometimes referred to as a “societal” perspective (more precisely, the TRC is measured from the perspective of the utility and all its customers).

Program Administrator Cost Test:

The Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test… is the measure of cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the “Program Administrator,” which is usually, but not always, the utility.

From this data, the major energy-saving measures (measures that account for at least 300 MMBtu of energy savings) are:

Pipe insulation hot application2 Refrigeration controls floating head pressure Process boiler2 Tank insulation cold application3 Process pumping VFD Lighting indoor high bay fluorescent Pipe insulation cold application Lighting indoor linear fluorescent Lighting indoor fixture integrated occupancy sensor Refrigeration strip curtain Process wastewater aerator HVAC chiller air cooled Water heating boiler2 HVAC rooftop or split system

The TRC and PAC ratios were compared for the measures listed above. Of the measures listed above, the ones that were found to have TRC and PAC ratios greater than one were considered to be the measures with the highest potential for energy savings. These measures are listed below in descending order: 2 Gas Savings 3 Winery cold tank insulation was a deemed rebate through 2012. It is no longer offered as a deemed rebate or calculated incentive (Pilek, 2014).





1. Pipe insulation hot application2 2. Process pumping VFD 3. Lighting indoor high bay fluorescent 4. Pipe insulation cold application 5. Lighting indoor linear fluorescent 6. Lighting indoor fixture integrated occupancy sensor 7. Refrigeration strip curtain 8. Process wastewater aerator 9. HVAC chiller air cooled 10. HVAC rooftop or split system





Figure 39. Measures accounting for electricity and gas savings from PG&E’s WIES program from 2010-2012 (from CPUC (2014a)).

10 Therm = 1 MMBtu 1 GWh = 3,412 MMBtu





Figure 40. Benefit-cost ratios of total resource cost (TRC) and program administrator cost (PAC) from PG&E’s WIES program from 2010-2012 (from

CPUC (2014a)).

Net benefit

Net cost





Existing Programs

SCE does not currently have programs specifically targeting wineries or vineyards (or irrigated agriculture in general). Other programs are described below. Vineyards

Staples Energy is a third party that provides PG&E customers with a free energy assessment of their current irrigation system and can aid customers wishing to receive rebates for deemed incentives (sprinkler nozzle replacement and/or drip conversion). Wineries

BEST-Winery Program Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) and Fetzer Vineyrads created the “BEST-Winery Benchmarking Program” in 2005 (Galitsky et al. 2005). The program can be used by wineries or third parties, and provides energy and water use estimates and guidance. The program establishes baselines, tracks progress, and estimates incentives and rebates from PG&E. The program could be modified to estimate incentives and rebates from another IOU. PG&E’s WIES Program PG&E is currently the only IOU in California that provides wineries (a segment within the broader agricultural programs sector) with a specific third-party expert. This third party segment-specific approach appears to more effectively reach the segment population than previous sector-based initiatives (Moss and Cubed 2008). The third party provides targeted information and helps wineries analyze existing systems and institute upgrades with the help of rebates and incentives. PG&E found that wine production industry typically consists of two general groups: (1) small/medium growers and wineries, and (2) large growers and wineries. Most of the medium-sized vineyards and wineries have been purchased by large wine production companies (Navigant 2013). The large companies have the resources to have dedicated energy specialists, while the small/medium producers do not. For this reason, PG&E hired a third party to institute a program targeted specifically at small and medium sized wineries, called Wine Industry Efficiency Solutions (WIES). The third party, CLEAResult, provides marketing and outreach, energy analysis support, education, program management, incentives, and installation support services. The following graph shows the distribution of costs associated with the WIES program.





Figure 41. Distribution of costs from PG&E’s WIES program by quarter from 2010-2012 (from CPUC

(2014a)).

The WIES Program is directed towards wineries that produce 500,000 cases annually or less. CLEAResult has found that the biggest impact comes from wineries that produce at least 100,000 cases annually. This is because the smaller wineries typically purchase “units” for processes, whereas the larger wineries purchase components that are put together. The individual components can be upgraded with newer, more efficient technology and controls for incremental costs, whereas at the smaller wineries, the entire “unit” would need to be replaced, which is typically too large of a cost. For the large wineries, process-specific third parties can be used. EnerNOC provides assistance through the Comprehensive Food Processing Audit and Resource Efficiency Program (boilers, water heating, lighting, HVAC, compressed air, and industrial systems), VaCOM provides assistance through the Industrial Refrigeration Performance Plus (IRPP) program, and Base Energy provides assistance through the Agriculture and Food Wastewater Energy Program (WEP).





CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Wineries and vineyards in SCE’s region use about equal amounts of electricity (about 38 MWh annually). However, in California as a whole, wineries consume about three times the energy (electricity and gas) that vineyards consume. This discrepancy may partly be due to the high water use at vineyards in central California, where a majority of the vineyards in SCE’s service area are located, compared to northern California (Napa, Sonoma, etc.). o Therefore, in SCE’s region, equal effort should be placed on energy efficiency

measures at wineries and vineyards. Wineries

The top 10% of users consume over ¾ of the energy and peak power demand. o The efficiency of these large users should be investigated. The large users are more

likely to have dedicated energy efficiency team members. However, if these large users have not instituted energy conservation measures, they provide the highest opportunity for savings.

SCE should target the components with the largest energy use and proven energy savings: o Refrigeration Pipe insulation cold application Refrigeration strip curtains (or other methods to reduce infiltration load from door

closings) HVAC chiller air cooled HVAC rooftop or split system

o Processing Process pumping VFD Process wastewater aerator

o Lighting Lighting indoor high bay fluorescent Lighting indoor linear fluorescent Lighting indoor fixture integrated occupancy sensor

SCE should investigate the following devices for possible future rebates/incentives: o Cold tank insulation Cold tank insulation was a deemed rebate until 2012. It is now considered an

“industry standard practice”. The actual use and economics of cold tank insulation in SCE’s service area should be investigated to determine if rebates/incentives for cold tank insulation should be reinstated.

o Flow meters (for all water/energy using applications) The actual water (and embedded energy) savings associated with flow meters on

devices and processes is not currently known. o Electrodialysis Electrodialysis significantly reduces energy consumption, but significantly

increases water consumption versus cold stabilization. The potential for





electrodialysis as an alternative to cold stabilization should be further investigated.

o Solar aerators Solar aerators can be used on wastewater ponds (common at wineries). The

applicability of solar aerators as a deemed rebate should be investigated.

SCE should institute outreach and a third party program specifically for wineries. o PG&E has found success with the Wine Industry Efficiency Solutions (WIES)

program, which is instituted by the third party CLEAResult. The program provides outreach, education, analysis, recommendations, and assistance to wineries for energy conservation efforts. As wineries use specific processes and equipment, a third party that is knowledgeable about those processes/equipment as well as the IOU programs can bridge the gap between the IOU and wineries, providing valuable help to the wineries and saving energy.

Vineyards

Further investigation is required to determine the “makeup” of vineyards in SCE’s service area. o While the individual vineyard accounts are small, it is likely that a few large growers

(or “parent companies”) account for a majority of the winegrape acreage. If this is true, it may be possible to target these parent companies for audits and assistance with energy efficiency measures (if they have not already instituted most measures).

Vineyards consume approximately 90% of the water supplied for wine production at vineyards and wineries. Vineyard water consumption varies greatly by location.

SCE should investigate the following devices for possible future rebates/incentives: o Flow meters (for all water/energy using applications) The actual water (and embedded energy) savings associated with flow meters on

devices is not currently known. o Cover crops Cover crops may be a viable alternative to wetting roads for dust abatement (and

therefore pest management) that also provide other positive effects. Paving is considered an expensive alternative, not economically viable for most growers. The actual difference in water use between cover crops and wetting roads for dust abatement is not known. The actual viability could be studied further.

SCE should institute a third party program for irrigated agriculture. o The equipment, methods, and requirements for vineyards are similar to the

equipment, methods, and requirements for all irrigated agriculture. A program that targets irrigated agriculture would reach a larger base than a vineyard-specific program, and would provide valuable evaluations, recommendations, and guidance.

o Common areas for energy and water inefficiency include: Malfunctioning nozzles and sprinkler heads Poorly designed/functioning filters Low efficiency pumps/motors at operating conditions Over-irrigation Applying water at a rate that is higher than the soil can accept it without runoff





Leaks o A third party could provide system audits (including pumps, motors, controls, valves,

filtration systems, etc.), distribution uniformity and water application/requirement evaluations, analysis, recommendations, and guidance through energy efficiency upgrades.

SCE should target the components with the largest energy use and proven energy savings: o High efficiency pumps and motors o System maintenance





REFERENCES

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), U.S. Department of the Treasury (2014). Freedom of Information Act - List of Wine Producer and Blender Permits. [http://www.ttb.gov /foia/frl.shtml]. Accessed 13 October 2014.

Barbose, G., S. Weaver, and N. Darghouth (2014). Tracking the Sun VII: An historical summary of the installed price of photovoltaics in the United States from 1998-2013. Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). LBNL-6808E. [http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6808e_0.pdf] accessed 10 November 2014.

The Cadmus Group (2009). Progress Evaluation of PG&E’s Agricultural and Food Processing Program: Final Report. CALMAC Study ID PGE0276.01. [http://www.calmac.org/publications /PG%26E_AG_and_FP_Report_20090727.pdf]. Accessed 20 October 2014.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (2014a). California Grape Acreage Report: 2013 Crop. [http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/ Grape_Acreage/] accessed 15 October 2014.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (2014b).California Grape Crush Report: Final 2013. [http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Grape_Crush /Reports/] accessed 15 October 2014.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (2013). California Agricultural Statistics Review, 2012-2013. [http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/ResourceDirectory_ 2013-2014.pdf] accessed 15 October 2014.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) (1994-2013). California Grape Acreage Reports: 1993-2012 Crop. [http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications /Grape_Acreage/Reports/index.asp] accessed 21 October 2014.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (2014a). California Energy Efficiency Statistics: Data Portal. [c] accessed 20 November 2014.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (2014b). Clarification of several cost concepts in CPUC demand-side cost-effectiveness tests. [http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/58129C08-C0EC -4C0F-926C-327F1A710537/0/ClarificationofSeveralCostConceptsinCPUCDemandSideCost EffectivenessTestsFinal.pdf] accessed 20 November 2014.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (2011). Bundled Customer Rates by Class from 2000-2011 for PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E. [http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/ Electric+Rates /ENGRD/ratesNCharts_elect.htm] accessed 22 October 2014.

California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA) (2014). California Sustainable Winegrowing Program: 2012 Progress Report. [http://www.sustainablewinegrowing.org/docs/CSWA_2012_ Progress_Report_v1.pdf] accessed 22 October 2014.

Cusick, R.D., B. Bryan, D.S. Parker, M.D. Merrill, M. Mehanna, P.D. Kiely, G. Liu, and B.E. Logan (2011). Performance of a pilot-scale continuous flow microbial electrolysis cell fed winery wastewater. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 89(6), 2053-2063). [http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s00253-011-3130-9] accessed 10 November 2014.

Cusick, R.D., P.D. Kiely, and B.E. Logan (2010). A monetary comparison of energy recovered from microbial fuel cells and microbial electrolysis cells fed winery or domestic wastewaters. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy: 35 (pp. 8855-8861). [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.06. 077] accessed 10 November 2014.





Department of Water Resources (DWR) (2014). Groundwater Information Center: Map Interface. ArcGIS Shapefiles. California Department of Water Resources. [http://gis.water.ca.gov/app/ groundwater/] accessed 22 October 2014.

Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1995-2012). Land Use Surveys. California Department of Water Resources. [http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/lusrvymain.cfm] accessed 17 October 2014.

DiscoverCaliforniaWines.com (2011). California Winegrowing Regions. Map. [http://www.discovercaliforniawines.com/wp-content/themes/californiawines/CA_WineMap _2011.pdf] accessed 13 October 2014.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2014). Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles. [http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm] accessed 25 November 2014.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012). Solar Decision Tree: Screening Sites for Solar PV Potential. Environmental Protection Agency and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). [http://www.epa.gov/oswercpa/docs/solar_decision_tree.pdf] accessed 17 November 2014.

Francioni, L. (2014). Personal Correspondence. California Sustainable Winegrowers Alliance (CSWA). 20 October 2014.

Franson, P. (2008). Water Use in the Winery: How wineries are conserving. Wine Business Monthly, December 2008. [http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=60129] accessed 15 October 2014.

Galitsky, C., E. Worrell, A. Radspieler, P. Healy, and S. Zechiel (2005). BEST Winery Guidebook: Benchmarking and Energy and Water Savings Tool for the Wine Industry. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Fetzer Vineyards. LBNL-3184. [http://industrial-energy.lbl.gov /files/industrial-energy/active/0/3184.pdf] accessed 16 October 2014.

Goldammer, T. (2013). Grape Grower’s Handbook. Chapter 14: Vineyard Deficit Irrigation Strategies, pg 189-193. Apex Publishers, Centreville, Virginia.

Guerra, B. (2010). Insect Pest Management for Organic Vineyards: Biological and cultural controls available to control the three main insect pests in California. Wine Business Monthly. July 2010.

Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) (2014). California Evapotranspiration Data for Irrigation District Water Balances. [http://itrc.org/etdata/irrsched.htm] accessed 24 October 2014.

Karban, R. and F.G. Zalom (1998). Success of mite-fighting tactics evaluated: In Central Valley, early-season release of Williamette mites cofers resistance on wine grapes. California Agriculture 52(6): 21-24. November –December 1998. [http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu/landingpage.cfm ?article=ca.v052n06p21&fulltext=yes] accessed 22 October 2014.

Kendall-Jackson (2011). Water Conservation: Utility Company Helps Us Save Water. Blog Post 14 July 2011. [http://blog.kj.com/water-conservation-utility-company-helps-us-save-water/] accessed 24 October 2014.

Lee, C. (2011). Reducing Wineries’ Climate Impact: How PG&E’s Energy Efficiency Programs Assist. Eco-winegrowing Symposium. 19 July 2011. [http://www.mendowine.com/files/Lee%20Eco Winegrowing%20Symposium_PGE%20Presentation.pdf] accessed 17 October 2014.

Lodi Winegrape Commission (2013). Lodi Rules for Sustainable Winegrowing Standards. [http://www.lodiwine.com/certified-green/lodi-rules-for-sustainable-winegrowing] accessed 22 October 2014.

McGourty, G. (2008). Managing Pests Organically, Simple Switch to chemical-free pesticides won’t get the job done. Wines and Vines. September 2008. [http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm ?section=features&content=58066] accessed 22 October 2014.





McGourty, G. (2004). Cover cropping systems for organically farmed vineyards. Practical Winery & Vineyard Magazine: September/October 2004. [http://www.practicalwinery.com/septoct04/septoct04 p22.htm] accessed 22 October 2014.

Moss, S. and M. Cubed (2008). Market segmentation and energy efficiency program design. California Institute for Energy and Environment, Behavior and Energy Program. Available on [www.calmac.org].

National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) (2014a). GIS Data Archive, Current Drought Monitor File for 2014-10-28. ArcGIS Shapefile. University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). [http://drought monitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/GISData.aspx] accessed 5 November 2014.

National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) (2014b). U.S. Drought Monitor Class Change. Interactive Map. University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). [http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAnd Data/ChangeMaps.aspx] accessed 5 November 2014.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (2012a). Lower 48 and Hawaii DNI 10km Resolution 1998 to 2009. ArcGIS Shapefile. [http://www.nrel.gov/gis/data_solar.html] accessed 17 October 2014.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (2012b). California-Annual Average Wind Speed at 30m. Map. [http://apps2.eere.energy.gov/wind/windexchange/windmaps/residential_scale_states. asp?stateab=ca] accessed 27 October 2014.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2013). Market Characterization Report for 2010-2012 Statewide Agricultural Energy Efficiency Potential & Marketing Characterization Study: Final Report. [http://www.calmac.org/publications/CA_Ag_Mrkt_Characterization_Final_5-13-13.pdf] accessed 17 October 2014.

Pilek, C. (2014). Personal Correspondence. CLEAResult (PG&E WIES third party). November 2014.

Prichard, T., M. Battany, R. Smith, and L. Schwankl, 2008. Irrigation Management of Winegrapes with a Limited Water Supply. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources: Davis, California. [http://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/PDF/WINEGRAPE%20 DROUGHT%20LONG-1.pdf] accessed 4 November 2014.

Prichard, T., B. Hanson, L. Schwankl, P. Verdegaal, and R. Smith, 2004. Deficit Irrigation of Quality Winegrapes Using Micro-Irrigation Techniques. University of California, Cooperative Extension, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources: Davis, California. [http://www.lodiwine.com/Final_ Handbook.pdf] accessed 4 November 2014.

Skinkis, P. (2014). Overview of Vineyard Floor Management. Oregon State University. 22 July 2014. [http://www.extension.org/pages/31597/overview-of-vineyard-floor-management#.VEg_PLEbhnY] accessed 22 October 2014.

Sumner, D.A., H. Bombrun, J.M. Alston, and D. Heien (2001). An Economic Survey of the Wine and Winegrape Industry in the United States and Canada. University of California, Davis. [http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research1/Winegrape.pdf] accessed 22 October 2014.

Trade and Data Analysis (TDA) (2013). World Vineyard, Grape and Wine Report – 2012. [http://www.calwinexport.com/files/World%20Vineyard%20Grape%20Wine%20report%202012%20-Whole.pdf] accessed 20 October 2014.

TTB see Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), above.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2013). CropScape – Cropland Data Layer 2013. [http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/ CropScape/] accessed 13 October 2014.





University of California (UC) Davis Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program (2008). Integrated Weed Management for Grapes. [http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r302700111.html #ESTABLISHED]. Accessed 22 October 2014.

University of Minnesota (2011). Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook. Regents of the University of Minnesota. [http://ipmworld.umn.edu/ipm.html]. Accessed 25 November 2014.

Wine Business Monthly (2009). What’s Cool: Controlling Dust in the Wind, New Products Control Drift. June 2009.

Wine Institute (2014a). “California Wine Profile 2013”. [http://www.wineinstitute.org/files/ CA20Wines20Stat20Profile202013.pdf] accessed 13 October 2014.

Wine Institute/Gomberg, Fredrikson, & Associates (2014b). “Wine Consumption in the U.S”. [http://www.wineinstitute.org/resources/ statistics/article86. Accessed 15 October 2014.

Wine Institute (2013). “US/California Wine Production”. [http://www.wineinstitute.org/ resources/statistics/article83. Accessed 22 October 2014.

Wu, Y.Y., S. Chow, and A. Ganji (2013). Energy Efficiency Opportunities in Wineries for Retrofit and New Construction Projects. Base Energy, Inc. Industrial Energy Technology Conference 2013, New Orleans, LA. 21-24 May 2013. [http://baseco.com/Publications/ 2013IETC-Winery.pdf] accessed 14 October 2014.




Irrigation Training & Research Center

ATTACHMENT A California IOU Winery and Vineyard

Rebates and Incentives




Irrigation Training & Research Center Page | A-1

Attachment A California IOU Winery and Vineyard Rebates and Incentives

Table A-1. Deemed Rebates – Wineries

Winery Upgrade Rebate Catalog Name

(if different)

Rebate Codes Catalog Rebate

PG&E SCE SDG&E SCG PG&E SCE SDG&E SCG

Refrigeration ‐ Fermentation, Cold Stabilization or Electrodialysis, Aging/Barrel Rooms, Cooling Water Pumping/Circulation, Cooling Office/Misc.

Monitor/optimize performance

Floating head and suction pressure controls

RF‐20965RF‐31355 RF‐41488

RF‐51222

DM‐30 DM‐31 DM‐32

$50/ton $29‐

239/ton

Evaporator fan controllers for walk‐in coolers

R53 RF‐37766 R‐K1 $75/controllera

Refrigeration floating head/suction pressure controller installation

Targeted Calculated Incentive $0.15/kWh, $150/kW

Efficient evaporator fan motor for walk‐in cooler

R176 Calculated Incentive $50/motor $0.08/kWh/ $150/kW

Efficient equipment

Oversized or efficient refrigeration condenser (air‐cooled, water‐cooled, or evaporative)

Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Efficient refrigeration compressor Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Chiller replacement Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Cooling tower replacement Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Advanced evaporative cooler Calculate

d Incentive

AC‐19317

Calculated

Incentive

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

$123/ton $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Air‐cooled to evaporative condensers


Oversized condenser installation Targeted Calculated Incentive $0.15/kWh, $150/kW

Refrigeration compressor replacement


Replace single refrigeration system with multiplex/parallel system


HVAC insulation Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Other efficient equipment Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

a May be available at no cost to SDG&E customers with monthly electrical demand under 100 kW through Direct Install program






(if different)



Refrigeration VFDs

Variable frequency drives for HVAC

H148 AC‐97352 AC‐91987

O‐B1 $80/HP $255‐300/HP $110/HPc

Refrigeration controls: VFDs forevaporator fan, condenser fan, refrigeration compressor, other refrigeration controls


PG&E: Glycol pump VFD SDG&E: Variable Frequency Drives

WIESb

Calculated

Incentive O‐B1

$500‐$4,000; rebates based on motor size, from 3‐25 HP

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

$110/HPc

Nighttime air cooling

Air‐side economizer repair and retrofit

Calculated

Incentive

AC‐98909 AC‐60978

Calculated

Incentive

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

$35/ton $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Air‐side economizer HA83 HA84 HA85

Calculated

Incentive DM‐41 $20/ton

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

$45/ton

Reduce infiltration load from door closings

Strip curtains RS001 Calculated Incentive $3/ft2 $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Auto‐closer for main/walk‐in cooler doors

R79 RF‐16925 R‐J11 $75/closera

High‐speed door closer Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Refrigeration Tank insulation

Insulating refrigeration storage tanks (PG&E: Glycol storage tank insulation)

WIESb Calculated Incentive

$0.75/ft2 Indoor Tank

$1.75/ft2 Outdoor Tank

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Pipe insulation

Insulation for bare suction lines RF‐82221 R‐G11 $2/linear ft $2/linear fta

Insulating chiller water, condenser water, refrigerant, bare suction, or refrigeration pipes


PG&E: Cold glycol pipe insulation SCE: Insulation for bare suction lines

WIESb RF‐82221 R‐G11

$1.40/linear ft Indoor

$3.60/linear ft Outdoor

$2/linear ft

Building Envelope

Building Insulation Insulation ‐ attic, roof, doors, Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

c Requires pre-inspection b Available only through winery-specific third party program a May be available at no cost to SDG&E customers with monthly electrical demand under 100 kW through Direct Install program






(if different)



windows, walls

Window film Calculate

d Incentive

BE‐58923 O‐A1 O‐A2 O‐A3

Calculat‐ed

Incentive

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

$1.35/ft2 $1/therm

Efficient windows Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Pumping – Receiving, Presses, Must Pump, Winery Pumps, Mobile Pumps, Cellar/Barrel Rooms, Refrigeration/Cooling Circulation, Bottling, Water, Wastewater

Pumping system overhaul Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Reducing pumping needs

Design alternative (new installation)

Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW Optimize fluid flow system

Low K control valve replacing inefficient valve

Improve performance of pumped fluid distribution piping

Controls Pump controls

Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW SCADA

Efficient pump design Precision castings, coatings, polishings High efficiency pump Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Correct sizing of pump

Trimming impeller Install a more efficient impeller Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

VFD Calculated Incentive O‐B1 $0.08/kWh, $150/kW $110/HPc

Replacing V‐belts Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Compressed Air – Receiving, Presses, Cellars/Barrel Rooms, Bottling

Reduce pressure drop

Improve compressor efficiency and reduce unnecessary operation

Calculated Incentive

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Reduce inlet temperature

Correct sizing of pipe

Reduce compressed air usage

Reduce air compressor discharge pressure

Controls Air compressor intermediate flow controller


Efficient equipment High efficiency fan Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

High efficiency air compressor Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Demand sensors for compressed air Controls Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

VFD

Variable speed drive on air compressor control

PR‐34445 PR‐60966

O‐B1

$75/HP (15‐50 HP)

$25/HP (50‐500 HP)

$110/HPc

Constant air volume to variable Targeted Calculated Incentive $0.15/kWh, $150/kW

c Requires pre-inspection






(if different)



air volume conversion

Replace V‐belt drives Install more efficient fan belt drive and/or blades


Wine Tanks

Wine tank insulation (cold tank) Insulating tanks Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Motors – Receiving, Presses, Winery – Ventilation Fans, Cellars/Barrel Rooms – Ventilation Fans, Bottling, Other

Controls Motor controls Calculated Incentive

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW

VFD

Correct sizing of motor High efficiency motor Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

High efficiency motor

Replace V‐belt drives Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Barrel Washing

Barrel washer/low‐flow nozzles Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Wastewater Treatment

Anaerobic digestion self‐generation Biogas Ca Self‐Generation Incentive

Program

$1.62/W

DO sensor for aerators Controls Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Efficient equipment

Efficient wastewater mixerCalculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

Fine bubble aeration

Pond aerations Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW

VFDs

Aeration blower VFD

Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW Blower VFD

Pump VFD

Boilers and Water Heating

Correctly sized/ high efficiency boiler

Commercial hot water boiler H105

G‐C1 N/A $1.50/MBtuh $0.50/MBtu

h

$0.50/MBtuh Tier I,

$4/MBtuh Tier II

Process boiler H11 G‐E1 G‐E2

N/A $2/MBtuh

$0.50/Mbtuh

$0.75/MBtuh Steam/Hot water Tier I, $1.50/MBtuh Hot water Tier

II

Reduce flue gas volume

Controls Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm Reduce excess inlet air

Demand sensors for hot water

Ozone cleaning barrels Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Improve insulation of boiler Tank Insulation G‐I1 G‐I2

N/A $2‐4/ft2 $0.08/kWh,

$150/kW $2‐$4/ft

2 d $2‐$3/ft

2

d Natural gas rebate






(if different)



G‐I3 G‐I4

Return condensate/used water Optimization Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Relocate boiler

Water Heater

Direct contact water heater G‐G1 G‐G2

$2/MBtuh $2/MBtuh

Electric storage water heater H154 WH‐50970

$30/unit $30/unit

Gas storage water heater HA58 G‐A1 N/A $200/unit $2/BMtuh $1‐5/MBtuh

Gas tankless water heaters G‐D1 G‐D2

N/A $0.50‐2/MBtuh

$0.94‐4/MBtuh

Electric heat pump water heater HA47 $500/unit

Pipe Insulation

Insulation ‐ hot water pipes (Electric heater)

a

Insulation ‐ hot water pipes (Gas heater)

H664 H665

G‐H31 G‐H41

N/A $2/linear foot $3/linear

foota

$2/linear ft

Lighting

Replace incandescent or HID with newer technology

Compact fluorescent, linear fluorescent, LED, induction fixture

See catalogs for specific codes and rebates

Replace old T8 lamp with new, low‐ or reduced‐wattage T8 lamp

Reduce voltage of HID lights

Replace exit signs with LED exit signs

Install lighting controls

Wall‐box, wall‐ or ceiling‐mounted, or integrated lighting sensors

Photocells

Time clocks

Install daylighting

General Electricity Measures

Energy management system Process energy management system

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Self‐generation

Wind Turbines Ca Self‐Generation Incentive Program $1.13/W

Fuel Cell Ca Self‐Generation Incentive Program $1.83/W

Cogeneration engine Ca Self‐Generation Incentive Program $0.46/W

a May be available at no cost to customers with monthly electrical demand under 100 kW through Direct Install program






(if different)



Cogeneration microturbine Ca Self‐Generation Incentive Program $0.46/W

Trigeneration engine Ca Self‐Generation Incentive Program $0.46/W

Trigeneration microturbine Ca Self‐Generation Incentive Program $0.46/W

Biogas Adder Ca Self‐Generation Incentive Program $1.62/W Additional





Table A-2. Deemed Rebates – Vineyards

Incentive Program Component

Catalog Name Rebate Codes Rebates


Irrigation System

Low pressure sprinkler nozzles A272 A273

PM‐57328 PM‐29652

O‐D1

$1.15/nozzle

Sprinkler‐to‐drip conversion A269 PM‐80400 OC‐1 $44/acre

Pumps

Biennial Pump Testing

APEP Statewide Program

Pumping controls Pump controls, water shutoff controls, pressure regulating float valve on stand pipes

Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Pumping system optimization

Overhaul, SCADA, tape drip irrigation system, optimize

fluid flow system Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Pump repair (Overhaul)

IR001 IR002 IR003 IR004 IR005

PR‐15002 PR‐21099 PR‐78421 PR‐89445 PR‐93334

Calculated Incentive $75/HP $75/HP $0.08/kWh, $150/kW,

$1/therm

Irrigation pump VFD

Pump VFD IR006 IR007

Calculated Incentive $40/HP $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Efficient equipment

Efficient pump/motor Calculated Incentive

Targeted Calculated

Calculated Incentive $0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

$0.15/kWh, $150/kW

$0.08/kWh, $150/kW, $1/therm

Centrifugal to vertical turbine pump

Targeted Calculated Incentive

$0.15/kWh, $150/kW



Documents

Energy Efficiency/ Sustainability and Expansion - · PDF fileCalifornia Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0730 805-756-2379 ... o Solar aerators Solar aerators