Implementing Emerging Technologies For The Water Sector: Case Studies Emerging Technology Summit Sacramento, CA Nov 7-9, 2010

Eliza Jane Whitman, PE, LEED AP Vice President

Director of Sustainable Strategies Parsons

2

Emerging Technology Trends

  Lots of money being invested for energy efficient & renewable technologies

  Increased interest in new technologies  Political drivers:

 Be ‘sustainable’  Be ‘efficient’

 Vendors/salesmen knocking on doors  Many new technologies claiming to be

sustainable and energy efficient

3

What Needs To Be Overcome

•  Concern of promoting and spending money on a non-competitive item (sole source)

•  Perceptions that technologies are experimental - Being the guinea pig on model # 001

•  Departmentalization – Accountant/risk manager vs operator/ maintenance staff: not the same priorities

•  Conservative engineering approaches, management and decision making (i.e. capital costs only)

•  Hear no evil: Speak no evil: See no evil - if not efficient, boss will wonder why it was not caught before

“Our industry is full of examples where equipment failed. If they (clients) have been around for awhile, they may be gun-shy.”

4

Smaller Agencies - Status

  Smaller agencies often have the highest energy inefficiencies – under/over designed; poorly installed

  No time to evaluate new and emerging technologies (limited staff)

  Budget cuts require agencies to focus on the traditional projects

  Only enough time and budget to complete capital and maintenance projects (limited funds)

  Insufficient staff, or skill sets for energy audits and efficiency evaluations, payback calculations, grants, and overall understanding of benefits

5

Larger Agencies - Status

  Larger bureaucracies, thus change difficult due to the multiple layers

  Need a champion that is willing to work through the change process at a high enough level

  Often engineering departments capable of evaluating new & ET, performing energy audits & economic analysis with payback

  More willing and financially capable of funding non-traditional projects

  Often will have already identified & installed improvements for decreasing inefficient systems &/or equipment

6

Case Study – Emerging Technologies

 Mechanical  Pumps  HVAC  Blowers

 Electrical  Lighting  Energy systems &

auditing  Monitoring & controls

•  Renewables –  Infrastructure (utilities,

etc.) –  Remodels/ upgrades

•  Materials –  Bldgs –  Equipment –  Coatings

7

What Do We Know Works ?

  Grants and other incentives to try new technologies   Incorporating technologies into projects already

scheduled and in the works   Company backing & proven technical expertise   Some way to remove if it fails   A sharing of loss/costs   Assistance with energy audits and efficiency

evaluations, payback calculations, grants, and overall understanding of benefit

8

Case Study – CA Renewable Energy Efficiency Project

•  Existing CIP project – Biosolids, manure, & food waste handling

•  Engineering department -calculated payback, economics, benefits

•  Received numerous grants •  CEC ($8M) •  NRCS ($4.9M) •  DOE ($2.3M) •  Gas Co. ($1M) •  Western United Resources

Development ($0.7M)

9

Case Study – CA Renewable Energy Efficiency Project

•  Components: – Methane gas from manure and

wastewater facilities – Thermal energy storage – Organic rankine cycle unit – Absorption chillers & evaporative

coolers – Gas purification

10

Case Study – Recycled Water System Optimization   Sensitivity analysis of the WWTPs,

recycled water production and customers (virtual operations)

  Received $Ms in grants Federal & State   Elements Evaluated

  Hydroturbine location   Alignment   Pipe sizing   Pump and reservoir operations   Process optimization   Peak shaving and equalization

11

Case Study – Recycled Water System Optimization

System-wide basis – Reducing velocity from 8 fps to 6 fps

  Decreases pump station capital cost by 4%   Increases pipeline capital cost by 15%   Decreases power consumption by 5%

Pipeline velocity 8 fps 6 fps Changes

Reservoir cost ($M) $65.1 $65.1 0.0%

Pump Station Cost ($M) $23.7 $22.7 (4.4%)

Pipeline cost ($M) $100.7 $117.9 14.6%

Total Construction ($M) $189.5 $205.7 7.9%

Total Demand 96,300 96,300 0.0%

Total Unit Cost ($/ac-ft/yr) $1,968 $2,136 7.9%

Annual Pwr Costs ($M) $6.4 $6.1 (5.0%)

12

Energy Evaluation

Category 30-inch 36-inch Difference

Pipe Velocity 7.2 5

Capital Cost $16M $19.1M ($3.1M)

Booster Pumps TDH (ft) 435 390 45

Power (hp) 2,570 2,310 260

Energy (kWh/yr) 16,821,000 15,081,000 1,740,000

Energy Cost ($/yr) $2,523,000 $2,262,000 $261,000

13

Location Pipe size Energy Reduction (kWh/yr)

Annual Savings

Payback

Sultana 30inch – 36 inch

1.740k $261k 11.5

Edison 30inch – 36 inch

1.793k $269k 25

San Bernardino PS

Sewer lift station

5.100k $610k 11.6

14

Potential Approach

  Encourage energy companies to focus on smaller agencies and/or certain funding available only for small agencies

  Create a market for ET   Encourage more package unit designs

(plug & play)   State mandated energy audits ?   Require EPA’s Portfolio Manager model   Help to define how much energy is

worthwhile saving

15

Questions?

Eliza Jane Whitman, PE, LEED AP Vice President

Director of Sustainable Strategies

626 440-3702 (office) 626 689-9992 (cell)

Eliza.jane.whitman@parsons.com