1 / 5

Ag Irrigation Hardware

The Ag Irrigation Hardware Subcommittee met on April 4, 2013, to establish consensus on recommendations for the Regional Technical Forum (RTF). The meeting focused on determining the appropriate UES measure category, discussing proven, provisional, and planning measures, and exploring the path to proven measures. Key discussions involved analyzing input assumptions, evaluating cost and savings guidelines, and the potential issues surrounding the proven category regarding irrigation hardware maintenance measures. The meeting concluded with a recommendation to pursue the Small Saver category, leveraging professional judgment to estimate input assumptions.

odessa
Télécharger la présentation

Ag Irrigation Hardware

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ag Irrigation Hardware Subcommittee Meeting April 4, 2013

  2. Today’s Goals • Get consensus on what to present to the RTF as the “subcommittee recommendation” • Determine the appropriate UES measure category • Proven, Provisional, or Planning; or • Small Saver • Review measure input assumptions and analysis methods • Savings • Cost & Life

  3. Guidelines: Options for UES (Categories) • Path to Proven • Proven • Baseline and efficient-case are “reliable” (backed by data) • Provisional • Baseline is “reliable” (backed by data) • Efficient-case can be determined using “reasonable assumptions (estimates ok) • Needs a research plan to get to proven • Planning • Assumptions are “reasonable” (estimates ok) • Needs a research plan to get to provisional or proven • Alternative: Small Saver • Assumptions are “reasonable” (estimates ok) • RTF knows “small” when it sees it (“small” refers to the regional savings potential) • If the measure remains a small (<10%) part of a utility’s efficiency portfolio, program evaluations may use the unit energy savings values. If it’s >10%, need full evaluation.

  4. Major Issues with Proven Category • Irrigation Hardware are Maintenance Measures • Baseline? • When do farmers naturally fix leaks or improve uniformity? • No representative pre/post energy measurements • The Idaho study gives us a good idea of leakage rates and uniformity, but • The translation of fixed leaks and better uniformity to energy savings requires assumptions • It doesn’t provide a representative sample of the population • Billing analysis from PacifiCorp study looks inconclusive • Neither of these issues are easy to solve. Therefore…

  5. Recommendation: Small Saver • “Small” • Regional program has been operating at about 1 aMW/year • The numerous input assumptions can be estimated using “professional judgment” by this subcommittee. Go to proposed measure workbook… AgIrrigationHardware_v3_PROPOSED.xlsm

More Related