Request for Proposal: Water-Energy Research (CP1-007-08)

Submitted Questions with CIEE Responses

Questions should be submitted to Michael Kusiak.

1. Does The CIEE Plan to hold a bidders conference? Answer: We have no plans to hold a bidders conference. 

2. The deliverables for Studies 1 & 2 include reports and a copy of the model.  Are these deliverables expected to simply inform or actually link to the current and future versions of the Energy-Water Calculator? Answer:The deliverables for Studies 1 & 2 are expected to inform the work that goes into the Energy-Water Calculator.  The studies will not link to the current and future versions of the Energy-Water Calculator.  When the Calculator is updated, the older version will no longer be available.

3. Are they expected to link directly to individual conservation measures in a manner similar to the way energy efficiency avoided cost and load shapes can be applied directly to measures in the DEER database (i.e. by knowing the climate zone and measure type)? Answer: They are NOT expected to link directly to individual conservation measures in a manner similar to the way energy efficiency avoided cost and load shapes can be applied directly to measures in the DEER database (i.e. by knowing the climate zone and measure type). DEER values will probably be developed for the individual measures.  

4. For Study 1, developing a model for the IOU service territories and for the major aqueducts (CVP, SWP, CRA) would appear to have a direct application to calculating embedded energy for specific water conservation measures by location.  It is not immediately clear what the intended use of a similar model for Statewide water energy intensities would be.  Data for the state as a whole and for some regions is not available at the same level of detail as that for the more well studied regions (i.e. the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins).  Please provide more detail on the intended use of the Statewide regression model and whether a less rigorous analysis (as compared to say the IOU  service territories) might be sufficient. Answer: A less rigorous analysis for a statewide estimate is possible, since it will be difficult to get water energy intensities for all of the municipal districts. The statewide number may be used for examining greenhouse gas reductions. However, since the range of intensities is large, it will undoubtedly be more prudent to examine water energy intensities at more specific (local) sites.

5. For Study 1, the quality and availability of older data may be better for some regions than for others.  Would a sufficient range of data to cover all weather and water year types and provide robust regression analysis be acceptable if it does not cover the full period from 1980 to 2006? Answer: If the quality of older data is suspect or may not even be available, then a sufficient range of data to cover all weather and water year types could be used for conducting regression analysis.

6. For Study 1, please comment on the degree to which alternatives to the regression model approach would be acceptable and what criteria must be met for an alternative approach to be considered.  For example, would an alternative approach that is well documented and transparent be eligible for consideration in the RFP?.  Answer: At this time, it is hard to imagine another model besides regression analysis for conducting this type of study. Even if an alternative approach is transparent and well documented, it may not serve the purpose that is intended for the regression analysis. Bidders should provide a sound rationale when suggesting an alternative approach.  

7. Study #2)  Embedded Energy Determination, Task 5 (p.9). RFP states "... contractor will select one water agency for each category ..." of low, average and high energy intensity for certain primary water/water-related functions. Is the purpose to select 15 water agencies that represent the RANGE of potential energy intensity experience, or to select water agencies that are most representative of the majority of the population? Answer: “The purpose is to select 15 water agencies that represent the RANGE of potential energy intensity experience: for example, in the high energy intensity category, we would like one agency representing wholesalers, one for retailers, etc.; for the average energy intensity category, we would like one agency representing wholesalers, one for retailers, etc.; and for the low energy intensity category, we would like one agency representing wholesalers, one for retailers, etc.”

8. Do you really envision a model that could credibly produce monthly results of energy and demand for water use around the state under alternative scenarios? Answer: Yes, we do envision a model that could credibly produce monthly results of energy and demand for water use around the state under alternative scenarios. It will be easier for those individuals and organizations that already have such a model, and it will be more difficult for those without a model. For those seeking more information on available models, people should contact the Pacific Institute (Peter Gleick: Water to Air Model, http://www.pacinst.org/resources/water_to_air_models/index.htm), UC Davis (Jay Lund: CALVIN model, http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lund/CALVIN), or UC Santa Barbara (Bob Wilkinson’s methodology report, http://www.es.ucsb.edu/faculty/wilkinson.php).

9. Is the funding limited to the order of magnitude you list in the stated estimate? Answer: Yes, the funding is limited to the order of magnitude listed in the stated estimate.

10. Can CIEE offer any guidance as to end-use metering priorities across the 8 categories of utility customers listed in Study 3? The budget for Study 3 will set boundaries on sample size for 8 categories. The challenge becomes greater when considering variability within categories. For example, small commercial could include office,  restaurant, motel, retail. Commercial could include large offices, conference hotels, data centers, malls. Answer: At this time, the CPUC does not have any end-use metering priorities.

11. From a policy perspective, is there anything wrong with a sub-contractor being included within the project teams of two competing bids? Answer: Subcontractors are allowed to participate in multiple teams. It is up to the Prime Contractor on defining the rules of engagement for their subcontractors: sometimes, the Prime Contractors, as a requirement for being a member of a team, will require subcontractors to only participate on their team. But this is left up to the Prime Contractor, not CIEE.
    
    
     

If you would like to be added to the CIEE List Server complete this form. We distribute notification about potential project opportunities through this list server.