Climate Action Plan Update Sept 12 2013 Special Board Mtg

Presented by: Ken Weinberg, Director of Water Resources Kelley Gage, Senior Water Resources Specialist Cheryl Laskowski, Ph.D., AECOM

Recap of 2013 Climate Action Plan Process

Overview of Climate Action Plan

Current Issues in Assessment of Greenhouse Gases

Key Elements of the Water Authority Climate Action Plan

Elements of 2013 Supplemental Program EIR

Remaining Steps

2

CAP – Climate Action Plan CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act ECO – Energy conservation opportunities GHG – Greenhouse gas MT CO2e – Metric tons of carbon equivalent RTP/SCS – Regional Transportation

plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SPEIR – Supplemental Program Environmental

Impact Report VMT – Vehicle miles traveled

3

Briefing on local climate studies State regulatory context for CAP preparation ◦ What is legally required of the Water Authority

CAP meets legal guidance under AB32 and CEQA

Received direction from Water Planning Committee to prepare draft CAP around compliance targets in AB32

4

Purpose: Identify long-term actions that would ensure efficient energy use of Water Authority facilities - How can we improve efficiencies? - Implement design standards for energy

efficiency identified in the CAP - Distributed generation - Training and outreach

5

CAP guides implementation of strategies to reduce GHGs ◦ Address goals of AB32 and CEQA ◦ Identify additional potential measures beyond compliance goals ◦ ECOs in Energy Audit included as a CAP emission reduction strategy

After approval, cost-effective strategies can be implemented ◦ Ensure Water Authority minimizes greenhouse gas emissions

6

Master Plan guides the Water Authority’s facility planning effort ◦ Evaluates potential opportunities for renewable energy ◦ Identifies projects that may provide energy price stability

The Climate Action Plan is being developed in conjunction with the 2013 Master Plan Update ◦ Will proactively address the issue of climate change as it

relates to activities within the Water Authority

7

Master Plan Identify future facilities needed and associated

emissions

Climate Action Plan

Will add new facilities to baseline emissions

8

Energy Management

Policy

Continuous Tracking for Compliance

Annual Energy Management Report

Climate Action Plan

Master Plan

Relationship between Energy Policy and CAP

‣ Executive Order S-3-05 ‣ Identifies climate change as an issue California

needs to address. Goals include: ‣ 2000 emissions levels by 2010 ‣ 1990 levels by 2020 ‣ 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (from IPCC)

‣ Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) ‣ Requires statewide GHG emission reductions

o 1990 levels by 2020 ‣ CEQA Guidelines Revisions (SB 97) ‣ Requires analysis of GHG emissions ‣ Required to make CEQA determination on GHG

emissions ‣ Comprehensive approach or project-by-project basis

10

Cannot hinder State from achieving 2020 goals

Individual projects must undergo CEQA review

CAP streamlines CEQA analysis for GHG emissions on future projects

Water Authority has chosen to prepare a Climate Action Plan (Section 15183.5)

11

Climate Action Plan (CAP): • CEQA streamlining for future projects • Can look at the “big” picture through

comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts • Provides broad list of possible mitigation

measures • Possible cost savings through energy efficiency and

water conservation • Contributes to regional sustainability goals • Demonstrates leadership within the community

12

The Climate Action Plan is being developed in conjunction with the 2013 Master Plan Update ◦ Purpose: To proactively address the issue of climate

change as it relates to activities within the Water Authority ◦ The Water Authority is taking action to minimize

our greenhouse gas emissions Master Plan

Identify future facilities needed and associated

emissions

Climate Action Plan

Will add new facilities to baseline emissions

13

14

Scope 2 •Electricity purchases (factors in renewables)

Scope 3 •Wastewater •Solid waste disposal

Scope 1 •Administrative Buildings (KM and ESC) •Water Facilities (WTP, FCF, PS, etc.) •Vehicle Fleet (on and off road vehicles)

Audit conducted Dec 2011 – Feb 2012

Completed report Sept. 2012 DHK Engineers, Inc & SDCWA Funded by Local Government

Partnership Program (SDG&E & SDCWA)

Purpose of Level I Audit ◦ Assess energy consumption, rates

and processes ◦ Compile energy use and cost info ◦ Identify potential Energy

Conservation Opportunities (ECO’s) Presented at E&O in May 2013

15

AB 32 provides a statewide goal for 2020

AB 32 and the Scoping Plan provide implementing actions for 2020:

Scoping Plan provides local guidance for 2020

State path to 2020 is understood* Emit no more than 1990 levels

Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, etc.

15% below 2005-2009 levels by 2020

*There is no local agency goal, but this provides direction. 17

No specific guidance for determining horizon year

AB 32 maintains the 1990 emissions limit beyond 2020 “unless otherwise amended or repealed”

Executive Order S-3-05 includes the 2020 goal and a goal of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050

Path beyond 2020 is less certain

18

19

SANDAG RTP/SCS EIR ◦ EIR was dismissive of

EO-S-3-05

◦ Failed to provide adequate information about impacts post-2020

◦ Focus was on per capita VMT, not total GHG emissions

Water Authority’s CAP ◦ Standard approach is to

match CAP with GP/MP horizon year; 2035 for Water Authority

◦ Post-2020 will be discussed

◦ Addresses all emissions sectors

Current litigation and Water Authority’s approach

20

Current litigation and Water Authority’s approach

County of San Diego CAP ◦ No method of enforcement

◦ Should have conducted separate environmental review (addendum to General Plan EIR was done)

Water Authority’s CAP ◦ Direct authority over

strategies and implementation

◦ Commitment to review CAP by 2020 to ensure progress

◦ SPEIR being conducted

AB 32 Scoping Plan provides guidance for 2020 target to local governments ◦ Allows flexibility and discretion of Lead Agency

◦ Government Operations CAP vs. Community-wide CAP

2020 Target

21

(Single purpose agency) (Multi-purpose agency)

AB 32: ◦ Maintains the 1990 emissions limit beyond 2020 ◦ ARB is to recommend how to continue reductions

beyond 2020

EO S-3-05 states 80% reduction from 1990 by 2050 ◦ Implies greater reductions needed than

“maintaining” 1990 limit; straight line target would be ~50% below 1990 levels by 2035 ◦ No specific compliance plans or strategies

identified by the State at this time

2035 Target

22

Focus on 2020 goal Evaluate 2035 emissions Commit to review CAP before 2020 ◦ Allows flexibility to develop strategies beyond 2020

◦ Demonstrates commitment to ongoing action

◦ Check-in point for assessing progress

◦ Provides any legislative updates to be included

2020 and 2035 Target Approach

23

Inventory GHG sources: Baseline Emissions

Estimate emission changes over time, including new Master Plan facilities: Future Emissions

Establish reduction targets

Identify GHG reduction strategies;

document feasibility, cost & implementation

Allow for periodic updates 25

Local Governments Operational Protocol Includes emissions that the Water Authority

can affect:

Activity Data X Emission Factor kWh CO2, CH4, N2O per kWh

Baseline Year 2009 Emissions Methodology

• Electricity • Natural Gas • Transportation

Fuel • Refrigerants

• Solid Waste • Wastewater • Water

26

27

Total Emissions: 9,325 MT CO2e in 2009

Baseline Year 2009 Emissions by Sector

28

Baseline Year 2009 Emissions by Facility

Total Emissions: 9,325 MT CO2e in 2009

Future emissions determine the level of reductions needed

Facilities developed since 2009 Facilities anticipated by 2020 and 2035

(Master Plan Projects) Findings and recommended reduction target

to be included in Draft CAP

2020 and 2035 Projections

29

Vehicle fleet replacement Lake Hodges Pumped Storage Lighting retrofit HVAC Twin Oaks Water Treatment Plant air system

changes

30

GHG reductions being evaluated for meeting 2020 target

Master Plan projects designed to be energy-efficient

Additional reduction opportunities include: ◦ Energy Conservation Opportunities from the Water

Authority’s 2012 Energy Audit Lighting and pump upgrades, facility and support

operational adjustments analyzed Rate optimization, new pumps, demand management

not analyzed ◦ Alternative electricity and transportation fuel

sources ◦ Hydroelectric: In-line and pumped storage

GHG and Financial Analysis Overview

31

Reduction Strategy GHG Savings Initial Cost Payback

ECO’s <100 MT CO2e/yr

$0-10,000+

2017-2035

Solar PV 100-200 MT CO2e/yr

$10,000+ 2030

Vehicle Fleet Conversion <10 MT CO2e/yr

$10,000+ After 2035

Hydroelectric Power 200-7,000 MT CO2e/yr

$10,000+ 2017-2032

32

33

Twin Oaks Valley WTP-5 ◦ SDG&E Incentive - requires monitoring and

performance ◦ Cost $35,500 ◦ 10 MT CO2e/yr ◦ Payback: 2017 (installed in 2014) ◦ Lifetime $/ton CO2e: $141

Example of ECO:

Reductions will be compared to the future emissions anticipated

Master Plan projects have not been fully analyzed

Target reduction number and whether we are meeting goals TBD

Confident we will achieve 2020 target in a cost-effective manner

Committing to 2020 target Beyond 2035 is uncertain; will be revisited in

CAP updates

Total Reductions and Target

34

Estimate 2020 and 2035 emissions levels Finalize reduction quantifications Establish implementation and monitoring

needed Finalize draft CAP for public release

35

Supplemental Program EIR

Master Plan

Identify future facilities needed and associated

emissions

Climate Action Plan

Will add new facilities to baseline emissions

36

Types of included projects: Initial 50 mgd Carlsbad Desalination Project Addition of Regional Water Treatment Capacity Addition of 100,000 AF of Carryover Storage Expansion of Internal System Capacity Rehabilitation of Existing Facilities

38

Near- and Mid-Term Projects 1. ESP North County Pump Stations 2. ESP San Vicente Pump Station 3rd

Pump Drive and Power Supply 3. Pipelines P3/P4 Conversion 4. Mission Trails Flow Regulatory

Structure 4a. Lake Murray Control Valve 4b. South County Intertie

5. System Storage 6. System Isolation Valves (various

locations) 7. Asset Management Program (various

locations) 8. Facility Planning Studies Potential Long-Term Projects 1. Pipeline 6 2. Second Crossover Pipeline 3. Camp Pendleton Desalination 4. Colorado River Conveyance

39

1

3 5

3 1

2

4 4

2

Near- and Mid-Term Projects 1. ESP North County Pump Stations 2. ESP San Vicente Pump Station 3rd

Pump Drive and Power Supply 3. Pipelines P3/P4 Conversion 4. Mission Trails Flow Regulatory

Structure 4a. Lake Murray Control Valve 4b. South County Intertie

5. System Storage 6. System Isolation Valves (various

locations) 7. Asset Management Program (various

locations) 8. Facility Planning Studies Potential Long-Term Projects 1. Pipeline 6 2. Second Crossover Pipeline 3. Camp Pendleton Desalination 4. Colorado River Conveyance

40

1

3 5

3 1

2

4 4

2

Greenhouse gas emissions analysis Biological resources – incorporate NCCP/HCP Potential effects and cumulative impacts of

additional project implementation ◦ Not adding new regional supplies ◦ Not revising 2010 Board approved Urban Water

Management Plan ◦ Not covering member agency supply projects

41

April 15 – NOP released for 30-day public comment; posted at County Clerk’s office ◦ Mailed 61 copies of NOP to federal, state and local

agencies; member agencies; stakeholders

April 19 - Notice published in Union-Tribune April 29 - Public scoping meeting held ◦ Two attendees, no comments

May 18 – Public comment period closed ◦ Three comment letters received

42

Agency/Group Comment California State Lands Commission

• Potential Responsible Agency

County of San Diego – Planning and Development

• County CAP included SBX7-7 targets consistent with SDCWA; coordination to implement

San Diego Bay Council -Surfrider -San Diego Audubon Society -San Diego Coastkeeper -Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation

• Minimize negative environmental impacts, GHG emissions, and ‘embedded energy’ in water supply portfolio • Pursue supply options such as IPR and DPR • Greater per capita water reduction targets • Analyze broad range of conservation alternatives in EIR • Develop a preferred “loading order” of water supply options • Assess long term conceptual projects in EIR • CAP should inform prioritization of projects

43

Date Description

September 12, 2013 Special Water Planning Committee Meeting – Workshop on Draft Climate Action Plan and Draft Supplemental PEIR for the 2013 Master Plan

September 26, 2013 Water Planning Committee Meeting – Recap of Master Plan, CAP, and SPEIR process in preparation for public release

November 2013 Public Release of the Draft Program EIR, CAP and Draft Master Plan for the 45-day public review and comment period.

January 2014 Public Hearing on Draft Program EIR, CAP and Draft Master Plan.

January 2014 Public Comment Period Closes

February -March 2014

Regular Board Meeting - Certification of Final PEIR and approval of Final Master Plan and CAP.

44