Managing the Urban Water-Energy Nexus - World...
Transcript of Managing the Urban Water-Energy Nexus - World...
Managing the Urban Water-Energy Nexus
Alvar Escriva-Bou, Research FellowCo-authors: Manuel Pulido-Velazquez (UPV, Spain) and Jay Lund (UC Davis, USA)
12th Annual Meeting of the International Water Resource Economics Consortium
The World Bank, Washington DC, September 12, 2016
The Water-Energy Nexus
2
In California, 19% of all electricity and 30% of all natural gas is used to extract, move, treat and heat water.
California’s water-energy relationship. California Energy Commission (2005)
Most of the Water-Related Energy is Used in Cities, Especially Heating Water
3
Energy Used by the Water Sector
in California (175,950 GWh)
The Urban Water-Energy Nexus
4
Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional
Local, State and Federal Policies
Water Utility
Energy Utility
High variability in hourly costs
Some variability in hourly costs
No variability in hourly costs
Main Goal: Assess How Management Decisions Affect all the Elements of the Urban W-E Nexus
5
Research questions
– How much energy and GHG emissions are embedded in the urban water cycle?
– What are the “unintended consequences” of water DSMP on water and energy utilities?
– Are there incentives to change the time patterns of water use?
Main Goal: Assess How Management Decisions Affect all the Elements of the Urban W-E Nexus
6
Approach
– Develop an hourly model to estimate water and energy flows, and GHG emissions
– Simulate scenarios to assess the benefits of joint management
– Assess changes in supply costs and GHG emission reductions of water DSMP
The Urban Water Cycle in EBMUD
7
WTPWWTP
PP
PP
PP
LelandPop. ≈ 130,0006,391 MG/year
Elevation:150 feet – 45 m
Danville Pop. ≈ 75,0003661 MG/year
Elevation:350 feet – 107 m
San RamonPop. ≈ 150,0007553 MG/year
Elevation:550 feet – 168 m
Total Supply:17604 MG/year
(out of 64868 MG/year)
Pardee and Camanche Reservoirs
Assembling the Urban Water-Energy Model
8
Water utilityWater users
Total AnnualWater Use
Hourly water demand
Hourly water supply
Water-related energy
Shares of use by customer category
Indoor vs. Outdoor
Hourly distribution of end uses
Irrigation Necessities (P-ET)
Pumping and treatment patterns
Water regulation
Water treatment
Pumping and distribution
Wastewater treatment
Water-related energy
Energy Intensity (from regressions and pumping
patterns)
Energy Intensity
(from end-uses)
Electricity Market (Hourly Prices)
GHG emissions
Natural Gas Utility
Electricity price (TOU Tariff)
Electric Utility
Social Cost of GHG Emissions
Some Preliminary Results: Most Water-Related Energy Use is from Water End-Uses
9
> $12 million /year (in EBMUD)
SOURCE: Managing the urban water-energy nexus (Escriva-Bou, forthcoming).
Urban water cycle
Total emissions per capita: 406 kg CO2/year
4.5% total emissions per capita in CA
Water and Energy Utilities Have Incentives to Displace Water Peaks to Energy Off-Peak Hours
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22Wa
ter-
rela
ted
En
erg
y U
se
in
th
e U
rba
n W
ate
r C
ycle
[M
Wh
]
Hour
23
WWTP
Pumping
WTP
Industrial
end-uses
Commercial
end-uses
Multi-family
end-uses
Single-family
end-uses
Water and Energy Utilities Have Incentives to Displace Water Peaks to Energy Off-Peak Hours
11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Ave
rag
e W
ho
lesa
le E
ne
rgy P
rice
[$/M
Wh
] W
ate
r-re
late
d E
nerg
y U
se in the U
rban W
ate
r C
ycle
[M
Wh
]
Hour
WWTP
Pumping
WTP
Industrial
end-uses
Commercial
end-uses
Multi-family
end-uses
Single-family
end-uses
23
Scenario Analysis
12
3 different scenarios:
– Business as usual
– Water Conservation: 11% in SF homes and 6% in MF homes
– Demand Response: displacing outdoor, dishwasher and clothes washer uses to off-peak hours
With 2 alternative cases:
– The California Case:90% gas-fired water heaters and 10% electric water heaters
– The Florida Case:10% gas-fired water heaters and 90% electric water heaters
Water Conservation Translates Into Similar Reductions in Energy Use and GHG Emissions
13
-8.0%
-7.0%
-6.0%
-5.0%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
Water Use Energy Use Electricity Demand CO2
Conservation and Demand Response Programs Would Benefit Both Utilities (and the Environment)
14
$- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000
Conservation CA
Demand Response CA
Conservation FL
Demand Response FL
Environmental Benefit Energy Utility Benefit Water Utility Benefit
Conservation and Demand Response Programs Would Benefit Both Utilities (and the Environment)
15
$- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000
Conservation CA
Demand Response CA
Conservation FL
Demand Response FL
Environmental Benefit Energy Utility Benefit Water Utility Benefit
$0.42 / capita·year
$0.42 / capita·year
$0.29 / capita·year
$0.29 / capita·year
Conservation and Demand Response Programs Would Benefit Both Utilities (and the Environment)
16
$- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000
Conservation CA
Demand Response CA
Conservation FL
Demand Response FL
Environmental Benefit Energy Utility Benefit Water Utility Benefit
$0.42 / capita·year
$0.42 / capita·year
$0.29 / capita·year
$0.29 / capita·year
$0.50 / capita·year
$0.28 / capita·year
$3.52 / capita·year
$1.39 / capita·year
Conservation and Demand Response Programs Would Benefit Both Utilities (and the Environment)
17
$- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000
Conservation CA
Demand Response CA
Conservation FL
Demand Response FL
Environmental Benefit Energy Utility Benefit Water Utility Benefit
$0.42 / capita·year
$0.42 / capita·year
$0.29 / capita·year
$0.29 / capita·year
$0.50 / capita·year
$0.28 / capita·year
$3.52 / capita·year
$1.39 / capita·year
$0.74 / capita·year
$0.92 / capita·year
Take-Home Messages
18
Saving urban water is an effective way to reduce energy use and GHG emissions in the water cycle
There are synergies for water and energy utilities by working together on demand-side management policies
Changing temporal patterns of water use can provide economic benefits for water and energy utilities, but not so to customers
Some Policy Questions & Implications
19
Who burdens the costs of conservation?
Who benefits from water savings?
Social cost of carbon can incentivize water-related energy conservation
Reducing dependence in fossil fuels will increase electrification of water-related uses, and so the link between urban water and energy use
Thanks!
Alvar Escriva-Bou, Research FellowCo-authors: Manuel Pulido-Velazquez (UPV, Spain) and Jay Lund (UC Davis, USA)
12th Annual Meeting of the International Water Resource Economics Consortium
The World Bank, Washington DC, September 12, 2016