Climate Action Plan Update Sept 12 2013 Special Board Mtg

1,454 views
764 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,454
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Climate Action Plan Update Sept 12 2013 Special Board Mtg

  1. 1. Presented by: Ken Weinberg, Director of Water Resources Kelley Gage, Senior Water Resources Specialist Cheryl Laskowski, Ph.D., AECOM
  2. 2.  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
  3. 3.         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
  4. 4.   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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6.   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
  7. 7.  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 Master Plan Identify future facilities needed and associated emissions Climate Action Plan Will add new facilities to baseline emissions 7
  8. 8. Relationship between Energy Policy and CAP Energy Management Policy Master Plan Climate Action Plan Continuous Tracking for Compliance Annual Energy Management Report 8
  9. 9. ‣ 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 13. Scope 2 •Electricity purchases (factors in renewables) Scope 1 •Administrative Buildings (KM and ESC) •Water Facilities (WTP, FCF, PS, etc.) •Vehicle Fleet (on and off road vehicles) Scope 3 •Wastewater •Solid waste disposal 14
  14. 14.  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  Presented at E&O in May 2013     ◦ Assess energy consumption, rates and processes ◦ Compile energy use and cost info ◦ Identify potential Energy Conservation Opportunities (ECO’s) 15
  15. 15. State path to 2020 is understood*    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 Emit no more than 1990 levels Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, etc. 15% below 20052009 levels by 2020 *There is no local agency goal, but this provides direction. 17
  16. 16. Path beyond 2020 is less certain    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 18
  17. 17. Current litigation and Water Authority’s approach  SANDAG RTP/SCS EIR ◦ EIR was dismissive of EO-S-3-05 ◦ Failed to provide adequate information about impacts post2020 ◦ 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 19
  18. 18. 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 20
  19. 19. 2020 Target  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 (Single purpose agency) (Multi-purpose agency) 21
  20. 20. 2035 Target  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 22
  21. 21. 2020 and 2035 Target Approach  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 23
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. Baseline Year 2009 Emissions Methodology   Local Governments Operational Protocol Includes emissions that the Water Authority can affect: • Electricity • Natural Gas • Transportation Fuel • Refrigerants  • Solid Waste • Wastewater • Water Activity Data X Emission Factor kWh CO2, CH4, N2O per kWh 26
  24. 24. Baseline Year 2009 Emissions by Sector Total Emissions: 9,325 MT CO2e in 2009 27
  25. 25. Baseline Year 2009 Emissions by Facility Total Emissions: 9,325 MT CO2e in 2009 28
  26. 26. 2020 and 2035 Projections     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 29
  27. 27. GHG reductions being evaluated for meeting 2020 target      Vehicle fleet replacement Lake Hodges Pumped Storage Lighting retrofit HVAC Twin Oaks Water Treatment Plant air system changes 30
  28. 28. GHG and Financial Analysis Overview   Master Plan projects designed to be energyefficient 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 31
  29. 29. Reduction Strategy GHG Savings Initial Cost Payback ECO’s <100 MT CO2e/yr $0-10,000+ 20172035 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+ 20172032 32
  30. 30. Example of ECO:  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 33
  31. 31. Total Reductions and Target       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 34
  32. 32.     Estimate 2020 and 2035 emissions levels Finalize reduction quantifications Establish implementation and monitoring needed Finalize draft CAP for public release 35
  33. 33. Supplemental Program EIR Master Plan Identify future facilities needed and associated emissions Climate Action Plan Will add new facilities to baseline emissions 36
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. Near- and Mid-Term Projects 1. ESP North County Pump Stations 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ESP San Vicente Pump Station 3rd Pump Drive and Power Supply Pipelines P3/P4 Conversion Mission Trails Flow Regulatory Structure 4a. Lake Murray Control Valve 4b. South County Intertie System Storage System Isolation Valves (various locations) Asset Management Program (various locations) Facility Planning Studies Potential Long-Term Projects 1. 2. 3. 4. Pipeline 6 Second Crossover Pipeline Camp Pendleton Desalination Colorado River Conveyance 3 1 3 5 1 2 2 4 4 39
  36. 36. Near- and Mid-Term Projects 1. ESP North County Pump Stations 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ESP San Vicente Pump Station 3rd Pump Drive and Power Supply Pipelines P3/P4 Conversion Mission Trails Flow Regulatory Structure 4a. Lake Murray Control Valve 4b. South County Intertie System Storage System Isolation Valves (various locations) Asset Management Program (various locations) Facility Planning Studies Potential Long-Term Projects 1. 2. 3. 4. Pipeline 6 Second Crossover Pipeline Camp Pendleton Desalination Colorado River Conveyance 3 1 3 5 1 2 2 4 4 40
  37. 37.  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
  38. 38.  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
  39. 39. Agency/Group Comment California State Lands Commission • Potential Responsible Agency County of San Diego – • County CAP included SBX7-7 targets consistent Planning and Development with SDCWA; coordination to implement San Diego Bay Council -Surfrider • Minimize negative environmental impacts, GHG emissions, and ‘embedded energy’ in water -San Diego Audubon Society supply portfolio -San Diego Coastkeeper • Pursue supply options such as IPR and DPR -Coastal Environmental Rights • Greater per capita water reduction targets Foundation • 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
  40. 40. 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

×