HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 Energy Conservation Reimbursments Agenda Item # g
TRUCKEE DONNER
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: Ed Taylor, Water Utility Manager
Date: August 10, 2007
Subject: Energy Conservation Cost Reimbursements
1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD
The board must approve all transfers of funds.
2. HISTORY
At the April 4, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a report on the energy conservation
program that the Water Department had implemented and the results to date. (Copy
attached)
3. NEW INFORMATION
NCPA staff from the Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Department has reviewed the Water
Departments Energy Conservation Program. The conclusion was that the water
department's energy conservation program meets the investment-qualified criteria for the
Public Benefits Program.
4. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the transfer of funds from the Electric
Department to the Water Department Facility Fee Fund for reimbursement in the amount of
$1,127,490.70 for the cost to date by the Water Department for its Energy Conservation
Program.
0 Page 1
s
tjtihty
Memorandum
To: Peter Holzmeister
From: Ed Taylor
Date: April 2, 2007
Subject: Operational Cost Control—Energy Conservation(Wire to Water
Efficiency Program.)
An element of the Districts Mission Statement is to provide service at the lowest
practical cost. To meet this Goal the Water Department has reviewed all items that
impact the cost of water delivery to the customer. One of the largest costs of operations is
energy. The cost of energy to pump water to our customers.
REVIEW:
In 1998 staff started a review and testing program for all of the wells and pumping
facilities in the District. This evaluation program is an industry standard known in the
Water Industry as Wire to Water Efficiency. This evaluation is simply the energy used for
the water moved.
It was determined that all of the water pumping and well facilities were energy
inefficient. After the initial evaluation a departmental efficiency standard was developed
to provide guidance in meeting the long term goal of high energy efficiency.
The Water Department will continue to evaluate the Wire to Water Efficiency of all of
the facilities. The new SCADA system will have the ability to monitor the Wire to Water
Efficiency on an automated continual bases.
PROGRAM: (Wire to Water Efficiency Program)
As part of the maintenance and energy conservation program, the existing facilities were
rebuilt to a higher energy efficient pumping system. Facilities that require an upgrade for
additional capacity are constructed to the highest energy efficiency standard available.
New facilities were constructed to the highest energy efficiency standard available. This
is an ongoing project.
BENEFITS:
Staff has evaluated the cost savings and benefits from the maintenance and energy
conservation program. A comparison of the 2001 energy cost per million gallons (MG) of
water produced to the 2006 energy cost per MG of water produced.
Year 2001 compared to 2006
The year 2001 energy and energy cost of water produced adjusted to the 2006 electric
rates was 5,586 kwh per MG and $692.87 per MG. The 2006 energy and energy cost are
4,688 kWh per MG and cost of$597.44 per MG.
This equals a savings of 898 kWh per MG or a savings of$95.43 per MG.
The 2006 production of water equal 2,373 million gallons. Therefore the total energy
saving for the year 2006 equals 2,130,954 kWh or 22%. This is a cost savings of
$226,455.39 for the year 2006.
The number of customers 2001 to 2006 went from 8168 to 12016 (47% ).
The water production 2001 to 2006 increased from 1697 MG to 2372 MG(39% ).
The water production energy usage 2001 to 2006 increase 9,478,779 KWH to
11,125,538 KWH (19% ).
COSTS:
District staff meet with NCPA staff from the Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
Department. NCPA staff member Dave Reynolds, Member Services Manager and Scott
Tomashefsky, Regulator Affairs Manager reviewed the District's Water Department
Operational Cost Control and Energy Conservation program. The review cover the Wire
to Water Efficiency evaluations, specific projects and the actual invoices for the projects.
The overall conclusion from the review meeting was that the water department
conservation program meets the investment qualified criteria for the Public Benefits
Program. Additional review of the specific invoices for the projects concluded that they
all meet the investment qualified criteria for the Public Benefits Program.
The attached page is a list of the projects completed to date.
The costs that the water department staff used for the increased energy efficiencies
project is only the cost of the pumps,motors, and motor control centers.
Year Upgraded Booster Pump Station Cost of Upgraded Pump
or New Pump
2000 Soma Sierra $ 85,915.05
2000 Donner Trails $ 65,016.86
2000 Northside $ 40,904.12
2000 Herringbone $ 32,821.80
2002 Ski Lodge $ 27,629.85
2002 Ski Run $ 25,776.56
2003 Falcon Point $ 33,429.77
2003 The Strand $ 38,616.42
MMUMMEM
2004 Richards $ 138,099.01
Ell
2005 Airport $ 147,100.00
2005 Red Mountain $ 30,059.49
Total for 2000-2005 $ 665,368.93
Year Constructed Well Pumping Equipment(MCC
& Motor) Cost
2001 Martis Valley Well $ 72,197.36,
2003 Glenshire Drive Well $ 88,498.01
ORMOSIM
2004 Prosser Village Well $ 93,492.01
2006 Old Greenwood Well $ 207,934.46
Total for 2001-2006 $ 462,121.84
Total Costs for Upgrading both Pump Stations and $ 1,127,490.70
Wells from 2000 thru 2006