The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02. Presentation on potential solar energy opportunities Page 1 of 16 Item 2. k�*k CENTRAL SAN CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA August 1, 2019 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: MELODY LABELLA, RESOURCE RECOVERY PROGRAM MANAGER REVIEWED BY: JEAN-MARC PETIT, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ROGER S. BAILEY GENERAL MANAGER SUBJECT: RECEIVE PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES AT CENTRAL SAN Staff has hired the expert solar consulting firm, ARC Alternatives, to evaluate any remaining opportunities for solar energy use within Central San's overall operation. The attached presentation was provided to Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee at their July 22, 2019 meeting and will be provided to the full Board at the August 1, 2019 Board meeting. The presentation includes an overview by staff on Central San's energy use and past efforts on solar energy and concludes with a briefing by ARC Alternatives on the results of their analysis and a potential solar energy project for Central San to pursue. Strateguc Plan Tie-In GOAL THREE:Be a Fiscally Sound and Effective Water Sector Utility Strategy 2- Manage costs GOAL SIX: Embrace Technology, Innovation and Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2- Reduce reliance on non-renewable energy ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 5 of 50 Page 2 of 16 '{4 q + UPDATE ON POTENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES Melody LaBella, P.E. Resource Recovery Program Manager Board Meeting August 1 , 2019 PRESENTATION OVERVIEW Background Central San's Power Usage Central San's Past Efforts on Solar Energy Solar Feasibility Briefing by ARC Alternatives Next Steps Questions August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 6 of 50 1 Page 3 of 16 WHERE IS POWER USED AT CENTRAL SAN? Treatment Plant Includes HOB, POB and the Lab Pumping Stations Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility (HHW) CSO Building and Vehicle Maintenance Shop (VMS) Annex and Bays (4737 Imhoff Place) CENTRAL SAN HOW DOES CENTRAL SAN MEET THE POWER DEMANDS OF THE TREATMENT PLANT? Cogeneration System (Cogen) Meets -90% of plant's energy demand Grid power Provides a reliable back-up Used to meet peak demands SI 5 August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 7 of 50 2 Page 4 of 16 WHAT DOES COGEN DO? r Electricity Produces —2.8 megawatts of power per day at a fully-loaded cost of $0.04 per kilowatt-hour CENTRAL SAN IS TYPICAL ENERGY USAGE BY CENTRAL SAN'S TREATMENT PLANT PG&E Solids to 0.48 ° Incineration 34% Natural gas 53% Landfill gas 13% Xj � 6 CFNTPAI SAN August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 8 of 50 3 Page 5 of 16 TREATMENT PLANT ENERGY USE IN 2018 2018 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update(January 1-Qecember31,2018) Estimated Anthropogenic GHG Emissions:23,789MT CO2e �Tetal OdlvN64hage �Co Q6NGWIWUSO —T-1 GAIN LFGO W —v LFL[ lkw] —Ictal 9—FWw lWhr G,000 a0,]00 3,i00 35,700 1,000 30,70D ],i00 75700 FN 1415 c M1t,Faa Wa Mu1311 I�ir 1:5 — y— Nms•a�w c fkr'Al?a�a0e�1G1� 3 C MehttMnre rctro� thy,M19Me—Se — E 2,000 20,]00 — 1.by Ee 30 .- c�.�omlre " a ID 1,i00 15,000 IA00 Ig700 iW 5.070 0 u 8 f`0k a �``z �8 � ��..8 F 6 9i.B '"'I �4.! yOo_ �h�.J a 'rB s e s s e - CFNTRAI SAN CENTRAL SAN'S PAST EFFORTS ON SOLAR ENERGY Participated in the Regional Renewable Energy Procurement (R-REP) Led by Alameda County Process was initiated in 2012 Central San's Board approved entering into the R-REP memorandum of understanding in January 2013 Initial procurement was for consultants who could perform solar energy analysis Optony evaluated HHW, CSO and Pumping Stations r HT I $ August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 9 of 50 4 Page 6 of 16 �� ` NeNinnal �„ R-REP I Hcncxahk F:nrr� procQrcmcai `r POWER THROUGH COLLABORATION The R-REP request for proposals (RFP) for solar array installation was issued in 2015 Options included direct purchase or power purchase agreement (PPA) Resulted in solar arrays being installed under PPAs at Central San's HHW Facility, CSO Building and CSO VMS Pumping stations were not pursued due to space constraints ' 9 CENTRAL SAN WHY WERE CSO AND HHW SELECTED FOR SOLAR ENERGY USE AT CENTRAL SAN? They had good installation characteristics, including good sun exposure, no shading issues and adequate space. Pumping Stations did not move forward due to space constraints. They were on grid power. They had power use patterns that made them attractive to solar investors. August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 10 of 50 5 k J J � tr IQ r r osta • i a e old... CENTRAL SAN jw .dt v SOLAR Wy Fnouu_t Creeks o �. Heavenly Ch archcSo +r; ARRAYS AT 4 Central Cont Cosia' .1 ^0 Sanrta is ' c CFNTRAI SAN • RIMMM M-M.•. • NORM awirs- • l • 5 OYFRYIEW P0.01ECT INFORMATION IIYE DATA -Nff RIR GUMENT GENFRAT10N MERATION 117 kW 666mm y �� LATEST GENERATION GENERATED TO DATE i t SEI _ �c.....Il�r�m-�w,ass M4M ANN c.M-�alaMlx, �Toptcrww>N-aw[4R MWh ENIARONMENTAL BENEFITS CURRENT WTAT11FR LOFETIME 932,896.9 Lbs. 448.6 Trees 417,115.4 Miles 894.2 Wlm' 88.2'F 134.7°F CARDONOEESET TREES SAVED MII.E3DRNEN IRTUDKNCE RM&ENT TERN' CENTRAL SAN MASTER PLAN 11 • OF SOLAR p.. MMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATERA STER PLAN UPDATE 8 + C•. • Workshop Part C1 Consider New Board Policy on Energy June 16._ ' 16 ��9CD CFNTRAI SAN Page 9 of 16 POTENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LOCATIONS • ' i 36 `t 10 Z 39 j 9 - 9 ' Tesoro 22 Refinery 1-680 <1 r" 5 r 1 HWY 4 128 :a T 1 and 5 o..,ions mr F. Buchanan Fields Airport ZX' is CENTRAL SAN WHY DID STAFF HIRE ARC-ALTERNATIVES': The "low-hanging fruit" for solar energy use at Central San have already been implemented through R-REP. Central San was receiving many unsolicited proposals. Solar power is a highly-specialized field. Economics, rate schedules, implementation programs, etc. Staff wanted to determine the best course of action for Central San with the help of an unbiased third party (not an implementer). 7FNTPAI SAN August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 13 of 50 8 Page 10 of 16 --_- -- _�Jrr�.�rrrius�i,� IIIIIrrrm' Prepared by: , '• �Jlrf<J�/o/_//,�I/,!/jy�01I11111d1 -- SOLAR June 2019 Prepared For: Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Alf"i --- (arc 17 Outline of Presentation z • Review site considerations and potential solar locations o • Discuss solar interconnection methods • Recommended pathway for Central San b Review risks related to implementation August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 14 of 50 9 Page 11 of 16 Available Areas for Solar Systems U„ 0 • With Staff,ARC reviewed the available locations on or D around the main treatment plant facility to identify locations that would be appropriate for solar • Three areas were identified as potential sites .s.►?;' � A. Lagiss Property on Blum Road K • Largest area identified > • Some concerns for neighbor sight-lines y • Will require new electric services for any systems `^ installed • Difficult topography • Identified as most promising site B. Marsh area adjacent to PG&E transmission lines • Long narrow unused land area • Shading concerns from power lines • CEQA concerns with proximity to marsh • Ultimately eliminated from consideration C. Roof-top of 4737 Imhoff Place • Flat roof area that would be good for a small easily-installed roof-top system • Eliminated, as considered "last resort"option due to size 19 Primary Area of Focus—Lagiss Property on Blum Road 0 r • Provides the clearest opportunity for a large solar system to offset the most District costs D • Can fit roughly 5.5 MW of power, much more that the District will need M • Will need to go through CEQA K process � D • Does have potential N neighborhood concerns that will need outreach The layout shown attempts to screen the system behind the hill on the property 20 August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 15 of 50 10 Page 12 of 16 Interconnection Options z • Net Energy Metering (NEM) M • Solar system installed "behind" District's utility o meter Z Z • Energy generated used to offset facility use n • Excess energy exported to utility grid and saved � as a credit at retail rates to offset utility Z Building Use purchaseso, K m • Energy import and export trued-up once a year r o � • Solar system sizing limited to 100%of the �� NBtFaCility Use Building Rale PGE Bill p energy use of the meter to which it is connected o • HHW currently connected using NEM II y LLL��111 z Solar Production • Net Energy Metering Aggregation (NEM-A) W • Allows for meters on the same property or z adjacent properties to benefit from a single T solar system as if they were connected under standard NEM • System sizing is limited to 100%of the energy use of the aggregated meters • CSO currently connected using NEM-A zi Interconnection Options — z M M • Renewable Energy Bill Credit Transfer(RES-BCT) • Has limited subscription capacity(-105 MW) oz • Allows for a single solar system to generate credits for use at up to 50 other meters belonging to the m District(must be in the same county) n • Credits are limited to the generation component of the accounts z • System sizing is limited to the generation component of a bill (-50%of total) M Building A use Building A Rate Building A Cost = O 00 p LnZ Building Z Use Building Z Rate Building Z Cost 0 W Wm F! n 4, $= Net Cost Final Bill T Solar Production RES-BCT Credit Rate RES-BCT Credit 22 August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 16 of 50 11 Page 13 of 16 Renewable Energy Bill Credit Transfer Program Subscription Limit z M A Primary risk for the RES-BCT pathway is the customer subscription limit • The program has a total subscription capacity of 105 MW o Z • As of May 31, 2019 the program had —20 MW of unallocated capacity and —43 MW of Z M pending capacity i • Of the 43 MW of pending capacity, 2 MW are new applications and the remainder are o further along in the process. E • Capacity becomes secured once a system has a signed interconnection agreement and a M approved building plans. o 0 V) RES-BCT Program Summary,Effective as of May 31,2019(Total cap of 105.25) z 0 W M Z M T Number of MW I 41.43MW(39.36%of cap) 43.46MW(41.29%of cap) 2 .36MW(19.35%of ca ) ■Total Counted Towards Cap[6] []Total Pending Projects[5] ❑Total Unallocated Program Space(Estimated) 23 Interconnection Scenarios Considered Z Scenario 1: Large NEM-A System • Install a 1.4 MW system the benefits all of the meters adjacent to the Lagiss Property o • Utilizes NEM-A interconnection method Z • Limits the benefit of the solar system to offsetting the main plant facility and the other relatively small adjacent utility meters o • Will required a new service to be installed at the property for the solar generating Z account M • Scenario 2: Large RES-BCT System o • Install a 3 MW system that benefits all of the major pump stations in addition to the o main plant z • Utilizes RES-BCT interconnection method 0 • Expands the benefits of the solar system District wide z • Will required a new service to be installed at the property for the solar generating T account • Scenario 3: Combination of Scenarios 1 and 2 • Install a 1.4 MW NEM-A system and a 1.7 MW RES-BCT system • Utilizes both interconnection methods • Will require two new services, potentially cost-prohibitive 24 August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 17 of 50 12 Page 14 of 16 Scenario Implementation Risks — z hL 7U Project M Componentn O z z Implementation Complexity O O 0 z Interconnection Method O • M 0 Neighborhood View O C • D Z • O Future Flexibility p0 z T_ CEQA Project Cost O O I Higher Risk O Lower Risk Scenario Financial Benefits Z M Total 25 Year First Year System Size Benefit perScenario Generation Breakeven Generation O (MW) watt Installed Z Credit(25 years) PPA Rate Credit Rate Z Z Scenario 1 1.4 $5,295,956 $3.78 $0.0992 $0.0648 0 Scenario 2 3.0 $14,983,222 $4.99 $0.1259 $0.0814 z Scenario 3 3.1 $13,555,204 $4.37 $0.1139 $0.0739 M • Recommend Pursuing Scenario 2 as it provides the most benefit per watt installed o • Contrary to initial expectations,the RES-BCT approach is more beneficial than NEM-A z • The main plant's rate structure limits its benefit under NEM-A benefit structure 0 • RES-BCT allows more flexibility around which rate is used to generate benefit while 00 M continuing site operations on an independent rate structures m • The breakeven PPA rate indicates the rate at which the project has a positive life-cycle net benefit • The first year generation credit rate indicates the rate at which the project is projected to be cash positive starting from year 1 August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 18 of 50 13 Page 15 of 16 Recommended Approach and Net Benefit — z M • Pursue Scenario 2 for 3 MW ground-mount system with Scenario 1 as an alternative if the A RES-BCT program becomes oversubscribed o Z • Targeted PPA cost for the system would be below $0.09 per kilowatt-hour for 25 year Z agreement • The forecasted cumulative benefit is shown below. ° ■ 3% utility escalation is used in the financial model. M 2 Scenario 2 Cumulative Savings O $4,500,000 >! $4,040,974 D $4,000,000 vi Z $3,500,000 01 1 W $3,000,000 ?:it T $2500,000 m 0 T_ L $2,000,000 � u ! $1,500,000 > $1,000,000 $500,000 U 1 $0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 ($500,000) Scenario 2—3 MW Solar System Size for Reference on Lagiss property T W Z C) M 7W V •iMp -':!6F4JIiOSEOPe August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 19 of 50 14 Page 16 of 16 NEXT STEPS FOR SOLAR ENERGY If the Board would like to move forward with Scenario 2, the following are the recommended next steps for staff: it Complete detailed financial analysis ' � � ;; smi. _ ■ ■ Finalize implementation approach Begin community outreach Begin environmental review (CEQA) Develop RFP Receive and evaluate proposals Return to the Board with a recommendation on whether or not to proceed with a project '29 CENTRAL SAN QUESTIONS 7. '30 August 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 20 of 50 15