- WATER-ENERGY NEXUS

[Senate Hearing 111-19]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 111-19

ENERGY-WATER NEXUS

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON ISSUES RELATED TO S. 531, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR
THE CONDUCT OF AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
AND PRODUCTION ON THE WATER RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

__________

MARCH 10, 2009

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-408 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire

Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel

C O N T E N T S

----------

STATEMENTS

Page

Bauer, Carl O., Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory,
Department of Energy........................................... 3
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Bolze, Stephen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Power &
Water, GE Energy, Schenectady, NY.............................. 7
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From Tennessee.................... 2
Gleick, Peter H., President, the Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA.. 13
House, Lon W., Ph.D., Energy Advisor, the Association of
California Water Agencies, Cameron Park, CA.................... 24
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 30
Webber, Michael E., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of
Mechanical Engineering and Associate Director, Center for
International Energy & Environmental Policy, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.................................... 17
Williams, Peter, Ph.D., Chief Technology Officer, ``Big Green
Innovations'', IBM............................................. 52
Wodder, Rebecca R., President, American Rivers................... 52

APPENDIX

Responses to additional questions................................ 59

WATER-ENERGY NEXUS

----------

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO

The Chairman. Why don't we go ahead and get started.
Senator Murkowski is on her way, but has been delayed a little
bit.
As I think most people who follow the activities of this
committee are aware this is a continuation of a series of
energy related hearings. The subjects that we have addressed in
previous hearings involve matters that we'd had a lot of work
in the committee related to before. Today however, we're
dealing with something of a new subject. It involves issues
likely to intensify in the coming years.
Energy production requires substantial amounts of water.
This is of course a resource that's becoming increasingly
scarce in several parts of the country. Whether it involves
electricity generation or fuel production the choice of fuel
stock can dramatically influence the amount of water that's
needed as part of the process of producing that energy. That
nexus is starting to emerge in permitting decisions around the
country.
Similarly acquiring, treating and delivering water itself
consumes a very large amount of energy. Improving water use
efficiencies may yield multiple benefits in the form of reduced
water demand during times of shortage and reduced energy
consumption with the intended cost savings that result from
that reduced energy consumption. So given the importance of
these issues the need to highlight the relationship between
water and energy, Senator Murkowski and I introduced S. 531,
the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009.
I believe this bill is a good first step toward integrating
energy and water policy. We may need to do more. I look forward
to today's testimony to help inform our understanding on these
issues.
Developing new policies that integrate energy and water
solutions will become increasingly vital as populations grow
and environmental needs increase and a changing climate
continues to affect our energy and water resources. We're lucky
to have a group of well qualified witnesses here today to give
their views on the bill, discuss the energy water connects--the
energy water nexus in general. We appreciate their being here.
I'm sure Senator Murkowski will have some opening comments
when she arrives. Let me ask if Senator Corker has any opening
comments he wants to make before we start.
[The prepared statement of Senator Mark Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to participate in
today's hearing on the water-energy nexus.
Water plays a critical role in the production of the energy that
powers our society, especially energy derived from fossil fuels. For
example, many coal-fired electric plants burn coal to heat water and
produce steam--it is this steam that actually generates the power. To
undergo this process, not only is water pulled from the local
environment, but some of it also evaporates and is lost.
Energy production, as we all know, is very important. But there are
other critical ways that we use water every day, including drinking and
cleaning. Water also plays a vital role in our food production, for
both grain and livestock.
These many uses of water unfortunately can cause conflict because
water is a limited resource. Especially in the arid west, who has
access to water determines who will succeed.
In recent years, that conflict has become more noticeable as the
western U.S. has experienced severe drought conditions. The impacts of
drought are costly in both lives and dollars. Drought conditions set
the stage for wildfires, crop failures, decline in recreation and
tourist activities, impacts on energy production, and other harmful
effects.
That does not mean that the federal government should become a
water regulator and create winners and losers based on water rights.
It does mean that all of us--from individuals to businesses to
government--should work to make our water use more efficient,
especially when it comes to energy production.
I am looking forward to hearing today's witnesses discuss these
ideas. Thank you all for being here.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE

Senator Corker. It's rare that I would do that as you know.
But since Lisa is not here I might just make a couple. I first
of all support us using all types of energy in this country.
Really appreciate the Chairman's efforts, mostly, in that
regard.
I have found recently though when you look at water
resources and you start talking about renewables the definition
can be a little clouded. I know that for instance, renewable
solar energy is less efficient and uses more water than
nuclear, nearly ten times as much as many coal plants. So when
you look at solar use in many of the drier parts of our country
where there's a lack of water, you really wonder how renewable
it is.
The largest solar concentrating plant in the U.S. has been
proposed for almost Gila Bend, Arizona. I don't want to
pronounce it incorrectly. But they use between 940 and 1080
gallons to produce one megawatt hour or about 1,000 homes.
The largest nuclear plant in the United States is in Palo
Verde in Arizona which uses 800 gallons to produce a megawatt
an hour. It's the only one that actually uses municipal waste
water to do so. The most efficient water using power plant in
Arizona is in Springerville which is a coal plant. It's more
efficient because it's at a cooler location, yada, yada, yada.
So I think it's interesting, Mr. Chairman that we're having
this hearing. Again, I support all types of energy uses. But I
think it's very important to understand whether renewables in
some cases especially in climates, it sometimes calls them to
be more efficient in some ways, actually, is very depletive of
water over time.
So I thank you for having this hearing. I'm sorry for
making an opening statement which is rare.
The Chairman. Thank you for the comments. I'm sure we can
get into those issues with the witnesses. So let me just
briefly introduce the witnesses.
Carl Bauer is the Director of the National Energy
Technology Laboratory in the Department of Energy. Thank you
for being here.
Stephen Bolze is with GE Power and Water in Schenectady,
New York.
Peter Gleick. Is that the correct pronunciation?
Mr. Gleick. It is.
The Chairman. Gleick is with the Pacific Institute in
Oakland, California.
Michael Webber is with the Center for International Energy
and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas in Austin.
Lon House, Dr. House, is with Water and Energy Consulting
in Cameron Park, California.
So thank you all very much for being here. If you'd each
take five or 6 minutes and give us your views on this set of
issues and what we need to think about as we try to construct
policy in this area. We would appreciate it.
Mr. Bauer.

STATEMENT OF CARL O. BAUER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ENERGY
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. Bauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
I'd like to present a little bit of the Department of
Energy's work in water and kind of an overview of some of the
issues. I strongly agree with the observation that water and
energy are codependent and intertwined in a very, very
substantial way. Simplistically one might suggest that power
generation from thermal sources, which is 90 percent of our
electricity uses consumes 3 percent of the Nation's water,
withdraws 40 percent, but consumes 3 percent.
Treating water, pumping, moving waste water consumes 6
percent of the Nation's electricity. So that gives you an
indication of the interdependence. Production accounts for, as
I said, 40 percent of the withdrawal, but is often confused to
suggest that's the use.
That water often goes back to its source, although there's
a thermal loading on it. So it's important to realize that
there's a consumption aspect of water use and energy
production. Then there is withdrawal and kind of a borrowing
and putting it back and making it available again. So there's
an opportunity for water management in a different way than we
presently practice to get more use out of the same water
availability.
As to the largest consumers of water and power generation--
I can't confirm your facts Senator Corker; and I don't dispute
them, possibly the water use in the production of photovoltics
is a part of that number. It's fairly high.
But the largest consumer, on a routine basis for large
power generation, are nuclear plants that consume 40 percent
more than the pulverized coal plants which is the majority of
the coal fleet. Although the IGCC power generation capacity, of
which there are two operating plants in the country, consume
about 40 percent less than the coal fleet. So I'm using the
coal fleet as kind of a baseline standard. Then natural gas
combined cycle plants consume about 40 percent less than--20
percent less than IGCC or 60 percent less than the coal fleet.
So our power generation fleet is very dependent on water
for its efficiency and operation both for making the steam for
efficient operation of it.
The Chairman. Could you just clarify? You made this
distinction between consumption of water and withdrawal of
water which is recycled.
Mr. Bauer. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are the figures you just gave us consumption?
Mr. Bauer. The figures I just gave you are consumption.
The Chairman. Consumption.
Mr. Bauer. So of that 3 percent that is consumed that's
kind of how the different plants would utilize it. That figure
of 3 percent is based on the existing fleet and the existing--
--
The Chairman. The three percent? Tell us again what that
is?
Mr. Bauer. The existing fleet removes about 40 percent of
the water that's available. It uses it and it puts it back in
the lake, or the stream, or the river, wherever it is. It
consumes 3 percent of the total water available.
That is if you look at a plant with cooling towers, you see
the white plume of steam and evaporated water. That would be
considered consumed because you can't use it again until it
rains. If I look at agriculture, they----
The Chairman. Three percent of the water that is consumed
in the country is consumed----
Mr. Bauer. By power.
The Chairman. By power production.
Mr. Bauer. That's correct.
The Chairman. One kind or another. Then you gave us
statistics as to how nuclear compares----
Mr. Bauer. Right.
The Chairman [continuing]. To coal and other things.
Mr. Bauer. That's right. Yes, sir. The whole point of that
is while there's a large amount of water that's needed, much of
it is not lost for further use. So that's important as you
consider the impacts of power generation.
You can't generate the power without the water. But the
water isn't damaged and not available for use in the largest
portion of it. So there's opportunities to handle that water.
Presently we remove everything in parallel and put it back
and it's kind of strange how it takes place. So that's a
possible opportunity. For example, if it's thermal loaded which
it would be after going through the cooling system, it still
would be used for irrigation because the thermal load is not so
great based on the standards that must be met not to harm
plants.
So instead of agriculture and power generating taking out
the same source, in parallel you may get more use out of the
water if you did some kind of a serial managed distribution of
it. I'm not trying to meddle there. I'm just suggesting there
are ways to look at trying to skin the cat a different way.
One of the challenges I think that faces energy and water
is the one that we all know is going on, and I'm about to run
out of time here, which is the challenge of greenhouse gas
management. The use of existing technologies to capture
CO2 out of the fossil fleet will substantially
increase the power generation to parasitic makeup because the
present technologies were never designed for the magnitude of
removal.
They are better than they were 10 years ago. We are working
at DOE to rapidly improve them. But the separation technology
requires a lot of energy. It also requires some additional
water for the MEA cycles, monoethanolamine.
That would also have impact on water because it would use
more water and actually use it and consume it, not just utilize
it. But it would also probably increase the cost of electricity
substantially. With my time running out I would just like to
make the point that a doubling of the price of electricity will
probably raise the price of water from 25 to 40 percent
depending on the distance the water is transferred.
So for example Southern California gets water from Northern
sources. It would have a 40 percent increase in the price of
water to the consumer there if the price of electricity were to
double. If I were up in a Northern portion of California,
probably not more than a 25 percent range. It's the same across
the country. So it isn't geographic and distance location
because the electricity is all about handling the water,
treating the water and cleaning the water.
I thank you very much for your time. I will stand by to
answer questions as appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl O. Bauer, Director, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appreciate
the opportunity to provide testimony on the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE's) research program directed at reducing power plant water use as
it relates to carbon capture efficiency and optimization.
Of particular concern is the potential implication on freshwater
requirements in a future in which carbon dioxide (CO2)
capture technology is required to be installed on coal-based power
systems. DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) projects
that, in the absence of successful development of new advanced
CO2 capture and water management technologies,
implementation of today's CO2 capture technologies would
significantly increase freshwater consumption by fossil-based power
plants.
In the absence of climate legislation, the latest Annual Energy
Outlook from the Energy Information Administration forecasts that
CO2 emissions from the electric power sector would
contribute over 40 percent of the Nation's annual energy-related
emissions of CO2 (equivalent) by 2030. Coal-based power
plants would emit 84 percent of the power sector's emissions under the
reference case scenario and, significantly, 95 percent of the
cumulative CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants, through
2030, would stem from existing coal-fired plants (Figures 1-3,
Appendix).* An additional 15 percent of power generation sector
emissions emanate from combustion of natural gas. A carbon control
regime that seeks to dramatically limit CO2 emissions from
the power generation energy sector will eventually need to encompass
both existing and new coal-fired plants as well as natural gas-fired
power plants. The comparative economics of retrofitting existing plants
and adding new natural-gas and coal-based plants with carbon capture
will come to the forefront.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy and water are indeed inextricably linked. Most Americans do
not realize that they use more water turning on lights and running
appliances each day than they do directly through washing their clothes
and watering their lawns. This is because thermoelectric power
generation facilities require large volumes of freshwater to operate,
ranking just behind agricultural irrigation in terms of total
freshwater withdrawal. These thermoelectric plants contribute over 90
percent of the Nation's electricity and, in the process, account for
about 40 percent of the Nation's freshwater withdrawal and about 3% of
the Nation's freshwater consumption (Figure 4, Appendix).
It is important to distinguish between water withdrawal and
consumption. Withdrawal is the removal of water from any water source
or reservoir, such as a lake, river, stream, or aquifer for human use;
for power plants, the primary purpose of this withdrawal is cooling.
Consumption, on the other hand, is that portion of the water withdrawn
that is no longer available for use because it has evaporated,
transpired, been incorporated into products and crops, or consumed by
humans or livestock. Note that water withdrawal rates are two orders of
magnitude greater than consumption (136 billion gallons per day versus
4 billion gallons per day). This illustrates that most water withdrawn
in power generation is not consumed, but returned to its source.
By comparison, nuclear power plants consume approximately 40
percent more water, and natural gas combined cycle plants consume
approximately 60 percent less water than equivalent contemporary
subcritical Pulverized Coal (PC) technology. Moreover, advanced
technology coal plants offer the opportunity to significantly reduce
the consumptive footprint, with integrated gasification combined cycle
technologies--or IGCC--offering the greatest reduction at 40 percent
less than that of a subcritical PC (Figures 5-6, Appendix).
Although a number of commercially available cooling technology
options--for example hybrid and dry cooling technologies--can reduce or
mitigate water consumption for all generating options, they all result
in added cost and increased complexity. In areas where water use is
constrained, such as the arid Southwest or the currently
droughtafflicted Southeast, increases in water consumption need to be
met with careful consideration. Water withdrawal permitting
requirements give the private sector the incentive it needs to advance
existing cooling technology options, with the exception of the
uncertainty associated with future requirements for carbon capture.
Using today's technologies, efforts to capture carbon from the
existing coal and natural gas plants, or from new fossil plants, would
cause increases in water consumption--a big concern for some regions--
and may increase the cost of electricity, a concern for all.
Capturing carbon from fossil plants requires the addition of
several energy intensive processes, for example processes that use
solvents to capture CO2, require energy to regenerate the
solvent so it can be used again. Once the CO2 is captured,
it must be compressed for sequestration or beneficial re-use, with
compressors usually having significant operating power requirements.
These processes are common to both conventional fossil-based combustion
processes as well as to advanced technologies such as IGCC. NETL
estimates that the added energy requirements for these processes
results in a significant increase in net plant auxiliary load, known as
parasitic power, resulting in a decrease in net plant power output of
15 percent to 30 percent. The requirement for additional systems could
have significant reliability implications.
NETL analyses indicate that efforts to capture 90 percent of carbon
emissions by using current near-commercial carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technologies on PC plants would more than double the amount of
water consumed per unit of electricity generated. Studies of this
consumptive footprint have indicated that IGCC with CCS has a
comparative advantage, with water consumption significantly lower than
that of postcombustion CCS technologies. Importantly, IGCC with 90
percent CCS can have a consumptive footprint lower than that of a
conventional PC power plant without CCS. Furthermore, the greatly
reduced carbon footprint of IGCC with CCS and its low-water consumption
compared to nuclear power plants may tend to focus future generation
technology choices on capital costs related to water consumption as
well as on CO2 emissions.
For instance, advanced coal systems with 90 percent capture emit
CO2 at rates substantially below that of existing and new
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) units. A comparable NGCC plant would
capture over 65 percent of its emissions in order to release
CO2 at similar rates. The implementation of CCS on natural
gas-fired plants would increase water demand in states such as
California, where natural gas exceeds 50 percent of in-state
generation. The use of today's post-combustion CO2
mitigation technologies could have substantial economic impacts. IGCC
technology would not increase the use of water relative to conventional
post-combustion coal power without carbon capture. Ongoing research and
development efforts for more cost-effective capture technology,
including improved water-efficiency, deserves continued attention and
support.
NETL actively collaborates with other parties from industry,
academia, state, and other Federal departments and national
laboratories in efforts to mitigate the impact of carbon capture on
water supply. Such activities have included recent collaborations with
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation in analyzing the
potential impact of the Clean Water Act 316(b) legislation on the
Nation's power supply and reliability.
NETL funds a significant amount of water-related extramural
research, focusing on technologies to reduce carbon capture water use.
Activities are further detailed in the Appendix.
NETL actively works with the Environmental Protection Agency on
drinking water issues related to CO2 injection.
Alongside NETL's expertise in power systems, such research and
collaboration plays a vital role in understanding the complex
interactions among energy, water, and the environment in the United
States.
In conclusion, DOE's Existing Plants, Emissions, and Capture
Program has a successful track record and a promising future that will
ultimately mitigate the impact of carbon capture on water supply.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this completes my
statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Bolze, go right
ahead.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BOLZE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, POWER & WATER, GE ENERGY, SCHENECTADY, NY

Mr. Bolze. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Steve Bolze. I'm the President and CEO of
GE's power and water business.
It's a pleasure to appear before this committee and discuss
a critically important issue that's often overlooked, the use
of water in the energy sector and also to offer GE's support of
the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009. If I could leave
the committee with only two thoughts it would be these.
One, 45 percent of all fresh water withdrawals in the
United States are used for industry.
Secondly, that percentage can and should decrease through
the wider adoption of advanced water treatment technologies and
reuse.
Federal policies that include incentives that reduce the
capital cost of installing advanced water treatment equipment,
similar to those provided for the deployment of renewable
energy technologies would drive significant water and energy
savings. You've already witnessed the success of your policies
in launching the U.S. into the world leader in wind generation.
Similar actions are needed and possible to set us up the path
to leadership in water reuse.
Do you recognize the connection between energy and water?
In fact in 2008 we integrated our power and water businesses to
better meet customer needs and address these significant
challenges. I run our power and water business which represents
over 30,000 employees. We operate in 140 countries and had 2008
revenue of 23 billion.
Based on our experiences of over 50,000 customers globally,
we believe there are significant energy and water savings to be
gained by further studying the connections between energy and
water. That we all know we need water for everything. In fact
it is said our economy runs on water.
Unfortunately water demand already exceeds supply in many
parts of the world. As the world's population continues to grow
many more areas are expected to experience the imbalance in the
near future. The situation is no different here in the United
States where most states expect water shortages over the next
decade.
The growing shortage of water also addresses our Nation's
energy picture. Energy and water are codependent. In simplest
terms energy is required for making water, as was mentioned
earlier. Water is essential for making energy.
Globally to give you a sense the demand for both these
resources are projected to grow. With energy demand doubling
and water demand tripling over the next 20 years. Fortunately
we believe that industry can reuse much more water than it does
today thereby freeing up scarce water resources for community
purposes.
We also believe that increased water reuse would result in
lower overall energy consumption. With advanced technology
funding will result in greater efficiencies than achievable
today. For example GE is working with the University of Wyoming
to develop advanced coal gasification. Such a process would
enable customers to more cleanly use low rank coals, but also
achieving 30 percent reduction in water consumption.
In short we believe that this committee can play an
essential part in helping to drive more water reuse in the
United States. To that end we would like to offer the following
three specific recommendations to the committee.
First, support of the NAS Study. We believe that it would
be valuable for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
study on how the development of energy impacts our Nation's
water supply as recommended in the draft legislation. GE would
welcome an opportunity to contribute technical and market
insights to the study.
Second, incentives to accelerate more reuse. While we
support the concept of the NAS Study to conform efficiencies
available we believe that as we have seen in places like
Singapore, Australia and other parts of the world. Incentives
are necessary to drive greater reuse in the U.S. with our
customers. Our feedback from our industrial customers across
the Nation is that an investment tax credit of 30 percent would
drive substantial increases in industrial water reuse.
Third, advanced technology funding support. We support a
continued commitment by Federal Government to conduct research
and important desalination and would welcome an opportunity to
partner with the public entities in this effort.
So thank you for conducting this important hearing and for
the opportunity to present this testimony. I look forward to
your questions and working with you a little longer term to
help on greater water and energy efficiencies. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolze follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Bolze, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Power & Water, GE Energy, Schenectady, NY
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Steve Bolze
and I am the president and CEO of GE Energy's Power & Water business.
It is a pleasure to appear before your committee today to discuss a
critically important but often overlooked issue--the use of water in
the energy sector.
If I could leave the committee with only two thoughts it would be
these. First, 45% of all fresh water withdrawals in the United States
are used by industry. Second, through the leadership of this Committee
and your colleagues, that percentage can and should decrease--
especially through the establishment of incentives that reduce the
capital cost of installing water management equipment, similar to those
that Congress has provided for the deployment of renewable energy
technologies.
You have already witnessed the success of your policies in
catapulting the United States into a world leader in wind generation.
Similar actions are needed and possible to set us on a path to
leadership in the area of water reuse.
GE has long recognized the connection between energy and water. In
fact, in 2008 we integrated GE's water and power generation businesses
to better meet customer needs and address significant global
challenges. GE Power & Water is a global leader with more than 100
years of industry experience. Our global team of more than 30,000
employees operates in 140 countries around the world, and had 2008
revenues of $23 billion. As the following chart shows, GE Power & Water
offers a diverse portfolio of products and services including renewable
energy technologies such as wind, solar, and biomass, and fossil power
generation, gasification, nuclear, oil & gas, water, transmission, and
smart meters.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All charts have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to offer GE's support
for the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009. We believe that it
would be valuable for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
study on how the development of energy affects our nation's water
supplies. In addition, we believe it would be beneficial for the
federal government to identify best available technologies to minimize
the use of water in the production of electricity. We believe that
there are significant energy and water savings to be gained in the
area.
the energy-water nexus
Although energy gets a tremendous amount of attention, it seems
like many people take clean water for granted. Perhaps that is because
they have never been in a situation where quality water was not
available when and where needed. The simple reality is that we need
water for everything.
Water is not only the lifeblood for humans, but it's also the
lifeblood of industry. In fact, it could be said our economy runs on
water. Unfortunately, water demand already exceeds supply in many parts
of the world. And, as the world's population continues to grow at an
unprecedented rate, many more areas are expected to experience this
imbalance in the near future\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Greenfacts.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation is no different here in the United States, where most
states expect water shortages during the next decade. Energy and water
are co-dependent. In simplest terms, energy is required for making
water and water is required in the production of energy. Globally, the
demand for both of these crucial resources is projected to grow at an
alarming pace, with energy demand doubling\2\ and water demand
tripling\3\ in the next 20 years, as shown in the figure below.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOE / EIA-0384 (2004)
\3\ NETL 2006
* All figures have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we prepare to meet the future electricity demands here in the
U.S., it is estimated that water demands related to electricity
production will almost triple from 1995 consumption levels. In
addition, the deployment of technologies to meet expected carbon
emission requirements will increase water consumption by an additional
1-2 billion gallons per day.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NETL 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, it is estimated that 45% of freshwater withdrawals in
the United States is used for industrial purposes.''\5\ And nearly 90%
of all industrial water--or 39% of all freshwater withdrawals--is used
for the generation of power.\6\ Although power generation facilities in
the United States today withdraw 136 billion gallons per day (GPD),
they only consume 4 billion GPD (lost through evaporation, etc.). The
vast majority of the water is used for once-through cooling water
applications, and then returned to the receiving stream. Once-through
cooling, however, consumes large amounts of energy to pump the water,
and it also elevates the temperature of the receiving stream.\7\ It is
often less expensive to pull water from a river or the ground than it
is to reuse it.\8\ In addition, many power plants in the United States
use potable water from municipal systems to meet their cooling and
other needs.\9\ This places strains on community systems. If the
cooling water needs could be met with reused wastewater, however,
significant benefits would result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USGS. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004
\6\ USGS. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004
\7\ USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004
\8\ USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004
\9\ Wade Miller, Executive Director, WateReuse Association (2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following chart shows how water-intensive it is to produce
electricity in a representative steam turbine plant. Water is required
for virtually every aspect of producing electricity. An average 1,000
megawatt power plant--like the one pictured here--requires more than 5
million gallons of water per day.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Calculation based on EPRI Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, not surprisingly, it's not just inside the power plant where
tremendous quantities of water are used in connection with the
production of energy. The water intensive process begins with the
production of oil. We understand from some of our customers who are
major oil companies that they consume an estimated 7 to 10 barrels of
water to process one barrel of crude oil from the well to the gas
pump.\11\ Some oil recovery processes are particularly water-intensive,
including Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), which uses 30-40
barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Conversations with GE Customers
\12\ Conversations with GE Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases, the impaired wastewater from these processes is
injected into deep wells, completely removing it from the hydrological
cycle. Today, the US will consume over 20 million barrels of crude oil
and petroleum products\13\, which will require 6 billion gallons of
water to produce.\14\ Technologies are available today that can enable
oil producers to reuse water many times over, greatly reducing water
demand and protecting the environment, but they need the incentives to
drive the right behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 13 EIA (Energy Information Administration) http://
www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
\14\ (20MM bbls oil x 42 gal/bbl x 7 gal H2O/bbl oil)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The good news is that technology advances in both power generation
and water treatment are reducing the amount of water necessary to
produce electricity. A recent EPRI study states that ``the larger the
shift from coal and nuclear to natural gas, the greater decrease in
water consumption for power generation (possibly as much as a 50% drop
relative to the base case and a 35% drop relative to today's use)''.
This report also emphasizes that ``water availability can constrain
electricity generation siting and power production, both directly and
indirectly.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPRI--Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water
Consumption for Power Production--The Next half Century
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that there is also good news on the coal front. The new
GE IGCC coal generation plant is more efficient relative to water
consumption than a traditional sub-critical coal-fired power plant. In
Wyoming, for example, GE is working with the University of Wyoming to
develop advanced coal gasification technology including a unique dry
feed injection process. The development of this dry feed process will
enable customers to more cleanly use lower rank coals from Wyoming,
Colorado, Montana, Utah, South and North Dakota, while taking advantage
of a 30% reduction in water consumption, through the use of IGCC
(Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) technology.
promoting greater reuse of water
According to the WateReuse Association, the US today reclaims and
reuses about 6% of its wastewater.\16\ In some countries, the level of
water reuse is much higher. For example, Israel today is reusing 70% of
its wastewater.\17\ Singapore is reusing 15%, but plans on doubling
this amount to 30% in 2010.\18\ Australia currently reuses about 8% of
its wastewater, but it has set a national target of reusing 30% by
2015.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ National Data Base of Water Reuse Facilities, WateReuse
Association (2008)
\17\ US EPA 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse
\18\ Source Ministry of Environment Website
\19\ Wade Miller, Executive Director, WateReuse Association
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of countries around the world have enacted incentives to
encourage more reuse.\20\ Singapore, for example, has created a Water
Efficiency Fund that provides up to 50% of the capital cost of water
recycling facilities.\21\ To the extent that incentives exist in the
United States, they tend to be at the local level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Addressing Water Scarcity Through Recycling and Reuse: A Menu
for Policymakers'' May 28, 2008 (http://www.gewater.com/who_we_are/
press_center/pr/05282008-Paper.jsp)
\21\ Addressing Water Scarcity Through Recycling and Reuse: A Menu
for Policymakers'' May 28, 2008 (http://www.gewater.com/who_we_are/
press_center/pr/05282008-Paper.jsp)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that industry can reuse much more water than it does
today. In addition, it is clear that we can harness more municipal
wastewater to provide for industrial needs. Rather than municipal
wastewater plants treating and discharging water back to a receiving
stream, by adding an incremental treatment process, either at the
wastewater plant or at the industrial plant, this water can meet the
needs of many industrial processes, including power plant cooling.
Some 11.4 trillion gallons per year of municipal wastewater is
being treated in the United States. Some communities are already
treating this wastewater and using it for applications including power
plant cooling water (e.g., Burbank, Las Vegas, Phoenix).\22\ A recent
DOE-sponsored study looked at 110 new power plants proposed for
construction in 2007 and found that municipal wastewater treatment
plants located within a 25 mile radius from the proposed power plants
could satisfy 97% of the new power plant cooling water needs. On
average, one large wastewater treatment plant can completely satisfy
the cooling demand for each of these power plants. Incentives to
collocate municipal wastewater treatment plants and power generation
plants in the future would go a long way toward providing sustainable
sources of water, reducing freshwater withdrawal and energy
consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Reuse of Internal or External Wastwaers in the Cooling
Systems of Coal-Based Thermoelectric Power Plants, Radisav Vidic, Univ
of Pittsburgh & David Dzombak, Carnegie Melon Univ Oct 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A great example of this type of public-private partnership is in
Tempe, Arizona, where demand for quality-reclaimed water is gaining
momentum in water-challenged Arizona as commercial and industrial
growth is increasing. Application of a GE technology solution enabled
Tempe to realize 2.5 billion gallons of water per year through water
reuse. The reclaimed water exceeds the state's Class A+ water reuse
requirements, which allows it to be used in the widest variety of reuse
applications. This water is now being used to meet the needs of a
neighboring power plant as well as a new recreational lake.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ http://www.gewater.com/who_we_are/audio-video/index.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent survey by the WateReuse Association of its more than 390
organizational members for the purpose of identifying water reuse and
desalination projects that are permitted and ``ready-to-go''
demonstrates that: 1) there is a robust demand for water reuse and
desalination projects; and 2) communities across the U.S. are in need
of federal support to undertake these projects. The survey identified
more than 270 ``ready-to-go'' projects in 11 states with aggregate
construction costs amounting to more than $5 billion.\24\ This level of
construction activity would, if fully funded, translate into as many as
185,000 new jobs.\25\ These new drought-proof supplies would provide a
long-term reliable supply for the economic future of these communities
and at a lower cost than depending on expensive imported water supplies
from other watersheds.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ ``Providing Safe, Secure and Sustainable Solutions for
America's Water Needs,'' The WateReuse Association, January 2009
\25\ ``Providing Safe, Secure and Sustainable Solutions for
America's Water Needs,'' The WateReuse Association, January 2009
\26\ ``Providing Safe, Secure and Sustainable Solutions for
America's Water Needs,'' The WateReuse Association, January 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we also believe that there are significant opportunities
to reduce water consumption in the production of oil and natural gas.
For example, to help minimize the environmental impacts and operating
costs of their activities, heavy oil producers in Alberta are
dramatically reducing their water consumption by using GE Water &
Process Technologies' ecomagination-certified, ``produced water''
evaporating system in the oil production process.
We also believe that--in general--reusing water will reduce energy
consumption. By way of example, we calculated that an average sized
1,000 MWh power plant that installs a water reuse system for cooling
tower blow-down recovery would reduce the energy demand to produce,
distribute and treat water by a net 15%, or enough to power over 350
homes for a year.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Internal GE Calculation March 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ge's commitment
At GE, we also see the importance achieving water and energy
efficiencies across our own portfolio of businesses. In 2005, GE
launched a global environmental initiative called ecomagination, which
is our commitment to do the five major things showed on the chart
below.

Ecomagination is a commitment to

Double our research investment
. . . to $1.5B
More ecomagination products . .
. $20B target
Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. . By 30%
Reduce water consumption by 20%
by 2012
Keep the public informed

With respect to energy, we have committed to reduce our greenhouse
gas emissions by 30% on a normalized basis (allowing for projected
growth of GE's businesses), or 1% in absolute terms from 2006 to 2012.
In addition, we have committed to reducing our water consumption by an
absolute 20% during the same time frame. At the same time, we're
working with our customers around the world to help them achieve
similar efficiencies.
In addition, GE is doubling its level of investment in clean
research and development from $700 million in 2005 to more than $1.5
billion by the year 2010. This research effort is focused on helping
our customers meet pressing energy and water challenges.
ge's white paper on water reuse policy options
We believe that even though governments in water scarce regions are
looking for ways to expand water recycling and reuse, they often have
difficulty finding information on the policy options from which they
might choose. So, on May 28, 2008, GE issued a white paper entitled
``Addressing Water Scarcity Through Recycling and Reuse: A Menu for
Policymakers,'' which draws on examples from around the world.
Although this white paper provides only a representative sample and
does not provide an exhaustive list of programs and policies, the four
major types of policies being used to increase water recycling and
reuse include the following\28\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Addressing Water Scarcity Through Recycling and Reuse: A Menu
for Policymakers'' May 28, 2008 (http://www.gewater.com/who_we_are/
press_center/pr/05282008-Paper.jsp)

A. Education and Outreach
Recognition awards and certification programs
Information dissemination and educational outreach efforts
Reporting of water consumption, discharge, and reuse data
B. Removing Barriers
Modifying local regulations that require that all water meet
potable standards
Revising plumbing codes to allow dual piping
Alleviating stringent permitting and inspection requirements
for recycled water
C. Incentives
Direct subsidies
Reductions in payments to the government
Payments for reintroduction of recovered water
Pricing mechanisms
Regulatory relief for recycled water users
Government procurement of water recycling/reuse equipment
Structuring of water rights to reduce the use of potable
water
D. Mandates and Regulation
Requiring utilities to develop plans for recycled water
Restricting potable water to human or food related uses
Requiring the use of recycled water for certain large volume
activities, e.g., irrigation
Requiring water recovery systems
ge's policy recommendations going forward
A. The NAS Study
We believe that it would be valuable for the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on how the development of
energy impacts our nation's water supplies, as recommended in
the draft legislation. GE would welcome an opportunity to
contribute technical and market insights to the study.
B. Incentives to Accelerate More Reuse
While we support the concept of an NAS study to confirm the
efficiencies achievable, we believe that--as we have seen in
places like Singapore--incentives are necessary to drive
greater water reuse in the U.S. Our feedback from our
industrial customers across the nation is that an investment
tax credit of 30% would drive substantial increases in
industrial water reuse.
C. Advanced Technology Funding Support
Finally, we support a continued commitment by the federal
government to conduct research in the important field of
desalination, and we would welcome an opportunity to partner
with public entities in this effort.

Thank you for holding this important hearing, and for the
opportunity to present this testimony. I look forward to your questions
now, and working with you over the longer term to help accomplish
greater water and energy efficiencies.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gleick.

STATEMENT OF PETER H. GLEICK, PRESIDENT, THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE,
OAKLAND, CA

Mr. Gleick. Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you very much for
the opportunity to come today to talk to you about this issue.
I want to make three points.
The first is energy requires water, sometimes a lot of
water.
The second is that water, the water systems of the United
States require energy and sometimes a lot of energy.
The third is that the failure to consider both energy and
water together leads us to inefficiencies to make bad policies
to do things that we shouldn't perhaps otherwise do. For that
reason I applaud this bill which encourages the Nation to
consider water and energy together in a more integrated way.
It's a very important first step forward.
So first, energy requires water. As we've heard already
every energy system in the United States requires some amount
of water to produce the kilowatt hours of energy that we
require. But not all energy systems require the same amount of
water. Typically, fossil fuel and nuclear energy systems
require more water per unit energy than do renewables.
But as Senator Corker mentioned that's not always the case.
Solar thermal, geothermal, often requires more water per unit
energy than some of the traditional sources. Solar
photovoltaics and wind require almost no water.
So as we develop our energy policy, if we're smart, we will
think about the water implications and add those into the mix
when we decide what we're going to do and where we're going to
do it. Renewables in one place may make a lot of sense. But
they may not in another place. Senator Corker's point is
apropos there.
Second, the Nation's water system requires energy to move
water, to treat water, to clean water, to distribute water and
to use water. All of those things require energy. But like the
energy system not each aspect of our water system requires the
same amount of energy. It takes different amounts of energy to
move water or to treat it with different kinds of systems or to
use water in the home.
So when you think about how to save energy and to save
water, thinking about the two things together makes a lot of
sense. We want to do the things on the water side. But save the
most amount of energy.
In my testimony, in my written testimony, Figure four, I
believe, is a pie chart that shows an example of the energy
required to move water to San Diego, to use water in San Diego.
It takes a lot of energy to move it from Northern California to
San Diego, to treat it once it's there, to distribute it, to
use it in the home, to collect it and then treat it again in
the waste water plant. For a place like San Diego a significant
portion of that pie is moving the water from Northern
California to Southern California. You have to pump it over the
Tehachapi Mountains or you have to move it from the Colorado
River.
A significant amount of energy is also required everywhere
to use water, mostly in the home, hot water for heating, for
showers, for washing machines, for dishwashers. It turns out a
big fraction of the energy required for water is in the home.
As a result policies that save water, better washing machines,
low flow shower heads.
We have national standards for those. Also save a
tremendous amount of energy. So thinking about these two things
together is incredibly important.
Finally I offer in my written testimony some specific
comments on the bill. Most of them are very minor. I'm not
going to go over them here.
One example though is in Section 6 in the required sector
section. You might strengthen the requirement that we look at
water use efficiency in a sense as an energy efficiency
savings. The State of California concluded that some of the
cheapest ways to save energy may turn out not to be energy
efficiency programs, but water efficiency programs.
You can save energy cheaper by saving hot water. That's a
great example of thinking about things together. Maybe coming
up with a different answer than you would otherwise have come
up with.
I also have a set of conclusions in my written testimony.
Again, I'm not going to go through them. But let me highlight
four.
The first is let's pursue new appliance efficiency
standards at the national level. We have appliance efficiency
standards, mostly from an energy point of view. We could do
better from a water point of view as well and save both energy
and water.
The second is let's pursue smart labeling of water
efficient appliances as we've done in the energy sector with
the Energy Star program. We're starting to do with water
appliances as well.
The third is let's promote research and development for
traditional energy sources to figure out how to cut their water
use.
We're going to be using fossil fuels, nuclear for a long
time. They use a lot of water. Let's see if we can figure out
how to cut their water use. Both withdrawals and consumption
are important.
Finally, let's promote research and development and speed
development of renewable energy systems which we're trying to
do anyway from a climate point of view in order to save water
as well. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'd be happy
to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gleick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter H. Gleick,\1\ President, the Pacific
Institute, Oakland, CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dr. Gleick is President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland,
California. He is an elected member of the U.S. National Academy of
Science and a MacArthur Fellow. His comments reflect his own opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, Senators: thank you for inviting me to offer comments
on the critical connections between energy and water in the United
States. Water use and energy use are closely linked: Energy production
uses and pollutes water; water use requires significant amounts of
energy. Moreover, the reality of climate change affects national
policies in both areas.
Limits to the availability of both energy and water are beginning
to affect the other, and these limits have direct implications for US
economic and security interests. Yet energy and water issues are rarely
integrated in policy. Considering them together offers substantial
economic and environmental benefits and I support the effort to do this
in the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009.
international and domestic water and energy challenges
As we enter the 21st century, pressures on both our national water
and energy resources are growing. Some recent headlines from around the
nation tell the story:

Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns
The Associated Press, January 2008
Sinking Water and Rising Tensions
EnergyBiz Insider, December 2007
Stricter Standards Apply to Coal Plant, Judge Rules; Activists Want
Cooling Towers for Oak Creek
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 2007
Journal-Constitution Opposes Coal-Based Plant, Citing Water Shortage
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 2007
Maryland County denies cooling water to proposed power plant
E-Water News Weekly, October 2007
Water woes loom as thirsty generators face climate change.
Greenwire, September 2007

Other nations are also feeling the challenges of energy and water
problem: The Mayor of London recently rejected plans for a desalination
plant on the grounds that it would require too much energy. A new
desalination plant in Perth, West Australia, was build under the
condition that new, renewable energy systems also be built in order to
minimize its greenhouse gas contributions. A major wind farm was built
to supply part of that plant's energy demand. The energy bill to
operate the British water company, Thames Water, amounted to 17% of
their total operating costs in 2007 and those costs are rising. Nuclear
power plants in France were derated during drought because of
temperature limits in rivers to protect ecosystems.
the nation's energy system requires water
Water is used in every phase of the energy cycle, as shown in
Figure 1.* A substantial fraction--nearly 40%--of the nation's water
withdrawals are used in the generation phase to cool power plants and
produce energy. This is the largest single withdrawal of water in the
United States. While most cooling water is not ``consumed,'' this level
of water use is putting more and more pressure on regional supplies,
and it may not be possible to satisfy all of the expected water needs
of newly proposed powerplants. In arid and semi-arid regions, power-
plant water demand can be a substantial fraction of limited regional
supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures 1-4 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far more water is required for nuclear and fossil-fuel energy
systems than for most renewable energy systems, depending on cooling
system type (see Figure 2). Moreover, some new fossil-fuel sources
require substantial amounts of water during mining and processing, or
contaminate large volumes of water making it unavailable for use for
other purposes. These differences must be taken into account in
national energy policy decisions.
the nation's water system requires energy
Capturing, treating, moving, distributing, and using water also
require energy. Figure 3 shows the energy inputs for different phases
of our water systems. To give you an idea for how substantial some of
these energy demands can be, the single largest user of energy in the
State of California is the State Water Project (SWP), which moves water
from the mountains in the northern part of the state to the coastal
cities in the south. The SWP uses an average of 5 billion kWhre per
year. In order to pump 1 acre-foot of water (326,000 gallons) through
the state system to Los Angeles requires an average of 3,000 kWhre of
electricity. Figure 4 provides a pie chart breaking down the total
energy required for water use in San Diego, showing the substantial
amount of energy to move water to the region, and the even larger
amount of energy to use water. Most of this energy goes to provide hot
water, and substantial energy savings are possible by reducing hot
water use. This startling assessment of the energy costs of water use
can also be seen in the following estimate: Running the hot-water
faucet for five minutes uses as much energy as burning a 60W
incandescent light bulb for 14 hours.
The growing understanding of these connections is beginning to lead
to new state and national policies. California is beginning to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions from water utilities. The
California Energy Commission recently calculated that 95% of the energy
savings of proposed energy-efficiency programs could be saved at 58% of
the cost through water-efficiency programs instead and this is leading
to a rethinking of funding priorities for energy efficiency.

WATER AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY SHOULD BE LINKED: CLOTHES WASHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Use kWhr per Energy Use per
Year Load Household (kWhr/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980 to 1990 3.9 1,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 to 1998 3.0 1,190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Efficient Washers 1.6 630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Pacific Institute, 2004

Table 1: The energy efficiency of washing machines has increased in
recent years, and new machines also save significant amounts of water.
Source: Pacific Institute, 2004. ``Energy Down the Drain.'' Oakland,
California.
Another indication of the links between energy and water use can be
seen in Table 1, which shows how improvements in the efficiency of
washing machines has led to a substantial reduction in energy use per
load, and per household. New washing machines can cut energy demands by
over 60% compared to earlier models, and they also save substantial
amounts of water.
As noted by the California Air Resources Board:

Water is one of the few sectors in California's
economy where the same policies can serve both
preventative and adaptive global climate change goals.
Making more efficient use of water will reduce our
demands on water resources and shrink the energy
consumption associated with water conveyance, pumping,
heating and treatment. California water policies can
therefore help the State to adapt to the effects of
climate change while also minimizing GHG emissions.
California Air Resources Board (February 11, 2008),
``Technologies and Policies to Consider for Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California.''
specific comments for changes in the ``energy and water integration act
of 2009''
Finally, I'd like to offer specific comments on the proposed bill.
I commend the sponsoring Senators for proposing this bill, and these
suggestions for corrections or modifications are modest. As my
preceding testimony should make obvious, I strongly support the need to
both analyze the links between water and energy and to develop national
policies that can minimize the unnecessary use of both resources.
Section 5(c)(2)C should read ``. . .to reduce the volume and cost
of desalination concentrated wastes and to dispose of those wastes in
an environmentally sound manner;''
Section 6 should generally refer to water-related energy ``use''
rather than ``consumption.''
Section 6. The amended text of Section 205 of the Department of
Energy Organization Act should include a call to both collect and
disseminate information on energy use as follows:

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Not less than once during each 3-
year period, to aid in the understanding and reduction
of the quantity of energy used in association with the
use of water, the Administrator shall conduct an
assessment under which the Administrator shall collect
and disseminate information on energy use in various
sectors of the economy that are associated with the
acquisition, treatment, delivery, and use of water.''
Section 6. In the ``Required Sectors'' section, the
following should be added after ``(D) domestic
purposes.''
``The assessment described in paragraph (1) shall
also contain an analysis of the potential to reduce
energy use through improvements in water-use
efficiency.''
conclusions and recommendations
Water and energy are tightly linked, but these links are poorly
understood and rarely used in policy.

Decision makers and corporations should better integrate
energy issues into water policy and water issues into energy
policy.

The failure to link these issues will inevitably lead to
disruptions in the supply of both water and power.
Water efficiency efforts can save substantial water (and energy) at
lower cost, and faster, than new ``supply.''

Water efficiency should be given a higher priority by
resource planners.
Implement water efficiency programs at all levels designed
to capture multiple benefits.

The climate implications of both water and energy policy are
significant.

There are large opportunities for fast, cost-effective
reductions in emissions.

National policies can help address both water and energy
challenges. In particular,

Phase out irrigation, energy, and crop subsidies that
promote wasteful use of water and energy.
Pursue smart labeling of water efficient appliances that
also save energy.
Pursue new appliance standards.
Promote research and development for traditional energy
sources that reduce water withdrawals and consumption.
Promote research and development for renewable energy
sources that use little to no water.
Use alternative water sources such as reclaimed or saline
water for power plant cooling.
Encourage biofuels development that uses little water or
discourage water-intensive biofuels.

I congratulate you for considering this vital issue and for helping
to raise national attention on the need to re-evaluate and re-focus
efforts on sustainably managing both our precious freshwater and energy
resources. Thank you for your attention.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Webber.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. WEBBER, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, THE
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN, TX

Mr. Webber. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you so much for the invitation to testify today. My name
is Michael Webber and I'm Associate Director of the Center for
International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University
of Texas at Austin. My testimony today will make four main
points.
The first of which energy and water are interrelated which
you've heard about from everyone so far.
The second point is the energy/water nexus is already under
strain. That means we have vulnerabilities in the system where
constraints in one sector can create constraints in the other.
Water shortages or heat waves can create water constraints that
become energy constraints as power plants either dial back or
turn off. Energy constraints can create water constraints if
you don't have the power you need for the water or waste water
treatment sector.
The third point is trends imply these strains will only
become exacerbated because of population growth which puts
upper pressure on demand for energy and water. Economic growth
which puts upper pressure on per capita demand for energy and
water. As we get richer we eat more meat which is very water
intensive. We have big homes that we air condition. That's very
energy intensive.
The third trend that exacerbates this strain is global
climate change which creates a greater intensity and frequency
of droughts and heat waves which create those strains I just
mentioned.
The fourth trend that creates the exacerbation of these
strains are policy choices we're making that don't consider the
energy and water impacts of the other. I'll go into more detail
on that in just a second.
The fourth point that I'd like to make is that there are
different policy actions at the Federal level that can help.
Coming back to the policy choice trends. We're making
movement as a Nation by choice, by policy choice, toward more
energy intensive water and more water intensive energy. For
example we're moving toward more energy intensive water.
We're raising the environmental standards for water and
waste water for good reason. But there are energy impacts of
those choices. Also as municipalities face water constraints
they push for new supplies of water from distant, low quality
sources which implies long haul pipelines or deeper aquifer
production or desalination all of which require more energy.
We're also moving toward more water intensive energy. We're
moving toward energy choices that require more water. For
example, nuclear power which is great from a carbon and
domestic perspective, but it requires more water than coal and
natural gas in most cases.
There is some good news. We're also moving toward solar
photovoltaics and wind which require no energy, as Dr. Gleick
mentioned. No water, excuse me.
Another important policy choice we're making is in the area
of transportation fuels. We're focusing on a wide suite of
transportation fuels almost all of which require more water to
produce depending on how you make them. For example
unconventional fossil fuels from oil shale, coal to liquids,
gas liquids and tar sands all require more water than
conventional gasoline.
Electricity for plug in hybrid electric vehicles, if made
from thermal electric power plants requires more water as well.
If that electricity is made from wind or solar photovoltaics,
it's better from a water perspective. Hydrogen could also be
more water intensive if made from the standard grid. Then the
real example is biofuels which require a lot of water to
produce.
So if we looked at how many gallons of water are required
per mile traveled, biofuels require something like 20 gallons
or more of water per mile traveled compared to a tenth or two-
tenths of a gallon of water for conventional gasoline. Biofuels
can be 100 to 1,000 times more water intensive. If that biofuel
is made from natural rainfall, maybe we don't care.
But if it's made from irrigation it can have water impacts.
So if you commute here ten miles and then commute home ten
miles and you drive on E85 from irrigated corn ethanol. You're
responsible is about 400 gallons of water consumed to meet the
fuel for your car and your commute.
Overall if you look at the Energy Policy Act 2005 and the
Energy Independence Security Act 2007, we have mandated
essentially that water consumption will go up because of the
targets for biofuels. If we look just at the E10 mandate worth
15 billion gallons a year from corn based ethanol that will
push our transportation fuel's water use from a trillion
gallons of water a year today to roughly two and a half
trillion gallons of water per year in 2022. That means all
water consumption for transportation fuels will grow from about
3 percent of national consumption today to about 7 percent.
This is a big jump. We need to make sure we have the water.
So we're making policy choices that don't consider this nexus
and might only exacerbate the strains.
The fourth point is that there are a variety of different
policy actions that can help because rivers, watersheds, basins
and aquifers can span several states and countries there's a
need for Federal engagement on energy water issues. There are
some policies pitfalls. For example energy water policymaking
are disaggregated. They have different funding oversight
mechanisms. There are many agencies and committees that touch
energy and water, but none with clear authority.
Water planners often assume they have the energy they need.
Energy planners often assume they have the water they need.
Those assumptions might break down.
Energy has a top down structure with strong Federal
agencies. Water has an inverted structure with strong local or
State agencies. The data on water quantity are sparse, out of
date, inconsistent and error prone, unfortunately.
We can't even agree on which units to use. In the East we
use gallons. In the West we use acre feet. So this results in
errors in the data. That's difficult for policymakers.
There are some policy opportunities at the energy water
nexus. Firstly is conservation. Water conservation, energy
conservation are synonymous. Policies that promote water
conservation achieve energy conservation as a byproduct.
Policies that promote energy conservation achieve water
conservation as a byproduct.
Secondly we need to collect, maintain and make available
accurate, updated, comprehensive, water data probably through
the U.S. Geological Survey. The Energy Information
Administration has extensive data on energy production, use,
trade consumption of all sorts. We need an equivalent source of
data for water.
We need to establish Federal oversight for water quantity.
The EPA has oversight of water quality.
We need to establish strict standards of building codes for
water efficiency as Dr. Gleick said.
We need to invest very aggressively in water related R and
D to match increases in energy related R and D. High R and D
targets might be novel approaches to desalination, air cooling
systems from power plants or biofuels that don't require fresh
water irrigation, for example, cellulosic sources or algae.
We need to support these to reclaim the water power plants
for industry and also agriculture.
Lastly I think we need to reconsider water markets. Water
is widely expected to be free and unlimited. Consequently we
waste it. We need to find a way to value water appropriately
while accomplishing our goals for social justice, human rights
making sure water is available.
In summary this is a complicated issue. I'm very pleased to
know that you're paying attention. Mr. Chairman, that concludes
my testimony. I'd be happy to answer questions later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael E. Webber, Ph.D., Assistant Professor,
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Associate Director, Center for
International Energy & Environmental Policy, The University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you so much for
the invitation to speak before your committee on the nexus of energy
and water. My name is Michael Webber, and I am the Associate Director
of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy and
Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of
Texas at Austin. I appear here today to share with you my perspective
on important trends and policy issues related to this nexus.
My testimony today will make four main points:

1. Energy and water are interrelated,
2. The energy-water relationship is already under strain,
3. Trends imply these strains will be exacerbated, and
4. There are different policy actions that can help.

I will briefly elaborate on each of these points during this
testimony.
energy and water are interrelated
Energy and water are interrelated: we use energy for water, and we
use water for energy.
For example, we use energy to heat, treat and move water. Water
heating alone is responsible for 9% of residential electricity
consumption in the U.S. And, nationwide, water and wastewater treatment
and distribution combined require about 3% of the nation's electricity.
However, regionally, that number can be much higher. In California,
where water is moved hundreds of miles across two mountain ranges,
water is responsible for approximately 15% of the state's total
electricity consumption. Similarly large investments of energy for
water occurs wherever water is scarce and energy is available.
In addition to using energy for water, we also use water for
energy. We use water directly through hydroelectric power generation at
major dams, indirectly as a coolant for thermoelectric power plants,
and as a critical input for the production of biofuels. The
thermoelectric power sector--comprised of power plants that use heat to
generate power, including those that operate on nuclear, coal, natural
gas or biomass fuels--is the single largest user of water in the United
States. Cooling of power plants is responsible for the withdrawal of
nearly 200 billion gallons of water per day. This use accounts for 49%
of all water withdrawals in the nation when including saline
withdrawals, and 39% of all freshwater withdrawals, which is about the
same as for agriculture. On average, anywhere between 1 to 40 gallons
of water is needed for cooling for every kilowatt-hour of electricity
that is generated. However, while power plants withdraw vast amounts of
water, very little of that water is actually consumed; most of the
water is returned to the source though at a different temperature and
with a different quality. Thus, while power plants are major users of
water, they are not major consumers of water, which is in contrast with
the agriculture sector, which consumes all the water it withdraws.
the energy-water relationship is already under strain
Unfortunately, the energy-water relationship introduces
vulnerabilities whereby constraints of one resource introduces
constraints in the other. For example, during the heat wave in France
in 2003 that was responsible for approximately 10,000 deaths, nuclear
power plants in France had to reduce their power output because of the
high inlet temperatures of the cooling water. Environmental regulations
in France (and the United States) limit the rejection temperature of
power plant cooling water to avoid ecosystem damage from thermal
pollution (e.g. to avoid cooking the plants and animals in the
waterway). When the heat wave raised river temperatures, the nuclear
power plants could not achieve sufficient cooling within the
environmental limits, and so they reduced their power output at a time
when electricity demand was spiking by residents turning on their air
conditioners. In this case, a water resource constraint became an
energy constraints.
In addition to heat waves, droughts can also strain the energy-
water relationship. During the drought in the southeastern United
States in early 2008, nuclear power plants were within weeks of
shutting down because of limited water supplies. Today in the west, a
severe multi-year drought has lowered water levels behind Hoover Dam,
introducing the risk that Las Vegas will lose a substantial portion of
its drinking water at the same time the dam's hydroelectric turbines
quit spinning, which would cut off a significant source of power for
Los Angeles. In addition, power outages hamper the ability for the
water/wastewater sector to treat and distribute water. Thus, strain in
the energy-water nexus is very real in the United States and is here
today.
It is important to note that while constraints in one resource
introduce constraints on the other, the corollary of that relationship
is also true. That is, both resources can be enabling for the other:
with unlimited energy, we could have unlimited freshwater; with
unlimited water, we could have unlimited energy.
trends imply these strains will be exacerbated
While the energy-water relationship is already under strain today,
trends imply that the strain will be exacerbated unless we take
appropriate action. There are four key pieces to this overall trend:

1. Population growth, which drives up total demand for energy
and water,
2. Economic growth, which can drive up per capita demand for
both energy and water,
3. Climate change, which intensifies the hydrological cycle,
and
4. Policy choices, whereby we are choosing to move towards
more energy-intensive water and more water-intensive energy.
Population Growth Will Put Upward Pressure on Demand for Energy & Water
Population growth over the next few decades might yield another 100
million people in the United States over the next four decades, each of
whom will need energy and water to survive and prosper. This
fundamental demographic trend puts upward pressure on demand for both
resources, thereby potentially straining the energy-water relationship
further.
Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure on Per Capita Demand for
Energy & Water
On top of underlying trends for population growth is an expectation
for economic growth. Because personal energy and water consumption tend
to increase with affluence, there is the risk that the per capita
demand for energy and water will increase due to economic growth. For
example, as people become wealthier they tend to eat more meat (which
is very water intensive), and use more energy and water to air
condition large homes or irrigate their lawns. Also, as societies
become richer, they often demand better environmental conditions, which
implies they will spend more energy on wastewater treatment. However,
it's important to note that the use of efficiency and conservation
measures can occur alongside economic growth, thereby counteracting the
nominal trend for increased per capita consumption of energy and water.
At this point, looking forward, it is not clear whether technology,
efficiency and conservation will continue to mitigate the upward
pressure on per capita consumption that are a consequence of economic
growth. Thus, it's possible that the United States will have a
compounding effect of increased consumption per person on top of a
growing number of people.
Climate Change Is Likely To Intensify Hydrological Cycles
One of the important ways climate change will manifest itself it
through an intensification of the global hydrological cycle. This
intensification is likely to mean more frequent and severe droughts and
floods along with distorted snowmelt patterns. Because of these changes
to the natural water system, it is likely we will need to spend more
energy storing, moving, treating and producing water. For example, as
droughts strain existing water supplies, cities might consider
production from deeper aquifers, poorer-quality sources that require
desalination, or long-haul pipelines to get the water to its final
destination. Las Vegas, San Diego and Dallas are already considering
some version of these options, all of which are extremely energy-
intensive. Desalination in particular is alarming because it is
approximately ten times more energy-intensive than production from
surface freshwater sources such as rivers and lakes. Some areas are
considering a combination of desalination plus long-haul pipelines,
which has a compounding effect for energy use.
Policy Choices Exacerbate Strain in the Energy-Water Nexus
On top of the prior three trends is a policy-driven movement
towards more energy-intensive water and water-intensive energy.
We are moving towards more energy-intensive water because of
increasingly strict treatment standards for water and wastewater, which
requires more energy than traditional approaches that met prior
standards. In addition, instead of a push for water efficiency and
conservation, many municipalities are pushing for new supplies of water
starting with sources that are farther away and lower quality, and
thereby require more energy to get them to the right quality and
location.
For a variety of reasons, including the desire to produce a higher
proportion of our energy from domestic sources and to decarbonize our
energy system, many of our preferred energy choices are more water-
intensive. For example, nuclear energy is produced domestically, but is
also more water-intensive than other forms of power generation. The
move towards more water-intensive energy is especially relevant for
transportation fuels such as unconventional fossil fuels (oil shale,
coal-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, tar sands), electricity, hydrogen, and
biofuels, all of which can require significantly more water to produce
than gasoline (depending on how you produce them). It is important to
note that the push for renewable electricity also includes solar
photovoltaics and wind power, which require very little water, and so
not all future energy choices are worse from a water-perspective.
Almost all unconventional fossil fuels are more water-intensive
than domestic, conventional gasoline production. While gasoline might
require a few gallons of water for every gallon of fuel that is
produced, the unconventional fossil sources are typically a few times
more water-intensive. Electricity for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) or electric vehicles (EVs) are appealing because they are clean
at the vehicle's end-use and it's easier to scrub emissions at hundreds
of smokestacks millions of tailpipes. However, powerplants use a lot of
cooling water, and consequently electricity can also be about twice as
water-intensive than gasoline per mile traveled if the electricity is
generated from the standard U.S. grid. If that electricity is generated
from wind or other water-free sources, then it will be less water-
consumptive than gasoline. Hydrogen can also be more water-intensive
than gasoline, depending on how it is produced. If made from steam
methane reforming or electrolysis from water-free electrical sources
such as wind, then hydrogen is no worse than gasoline (and potentially
much better). However, if hydrogen is made from electrolysis using
electricity from the standard U.S. grid, then producing hydrogen might
consume more than 25 gallons of water and withdraw more than 1000
gallons for every gallon of gasoline equivalent energy that is
produced. Though unconventional fossil fuels, electricity and hydrogen
are all potentially more water-intensive than conventional gasoline by
up to a factor of 10 or so, biofuels are particularly water-intensive.
Growing biofuels consumes more than 1000 gallons of water for every
gallon of fuel that is produced. Sometimes this water is provided
naturally from rainfall, however for a non-trivial proportion of our
biofuels production, irrigation is used. Irrigated biofuels from corn
or soy can consume twenty or more gallons of water for every mile
traveled.
Note that for the sake of analysis and regulation, it is convenient
to consider the water requirements per mile traveled. Doing so
incorporates the energy density of the final fuels plus the efficiency
of the engines, motors or fuel cells with which they are compatible.
If we compare the water requirements per mile traveled with
projections for future transportation miles and combined those figures
with mandates for the use of new fuels, such as biofuels, the water
impacts are startling. Water consumption might go up from approximately
one trillion gallons of water per year to make gasoline (with ethanol
as an oxygenate), to a few trillion gallons of water per year. To put
this water consumption into context, each year the United States
consumes about 36 trillion gallons of water. Consequently, it is
possible that water consumption for transportation will more than
double from less than 3% of national use to more than 7% of national
use. In a time when we are already facing water constraints, it is not
clear we have the water to pursue this path. Essentially we are
deciding to switch from foreign oil to domestic water for our
transportation fuels, and while that might be a good decision for
strategic purposes, I advise that we first make sure we have the water.
there are different policy actions that can help
Because there are many rivers, watersheds, basins and aquifers that
span several states and/or countries, there is a need for federal
engagement on energy-water issues.
Unfortunately, there are some policy pitfalls at the energy-water
nexus. For example, energy and water policymaking are disaggregated.
The funding and oversight mechanisms are separate, and there are a
multitude of agencies, committees, and so forth, none of which have
clear authority. It is not unusual for water planners to assume they
have all the energy they need and for energy planners to assume they
have the water they need. If their assumptions break down, it could
cause significant problems. In addition, the hierarchy of policymaking
is dissimilar. Energy policy is formulated in a top-down approach, with
powerful federal energy agencies, while water policy is formulated in a
bottom-up approach, with powerful local and state water agencies.
Furthermore, the data on water quantity are sparse, error-prone, and
inconsistent. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted its
last survey on water consumption in 1995 and its last published data on
water withdrawals are from 2000. National databases of water use for
power plants contain errors, possibly due to differences in the units,
format and definitions between state and federal reporting
requirements. For example, the definitions for water use, withdrawal
and consumption are not always clear. And, water planners in the east
use ``gallons'' and water planners in the west use ``acre-feet,''
introducing additional risk for confusion or mistakes.
Despite the potential pitfalls, there are policy opportunities at
the energy-water nexus. For example, water conservation and energy
conservation are synonymous. Policies that promote water conservation
also achieve energy conservation. Policies that promote energy
conservation also achieve water conservation. It is my opinion that
robust energy and water policies should begin with conservation because
of the cascading cross-over benefits they offer.
Thankfully, the federal government has some effective policy levers
at its disposal. I recommend the following policy actions for the
energy-water nexus:

1. Collect, maintain and make available accurate, updated and
comprehensive water data, possibly through the USGS. The
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
maintains an extensive database of accurate, up-to-date and
comprehensive information on energy production, consumption,
trade, and price available with temporal and geographic
resolution and standardized units. Unfortunately, there is no
equivalent set of data for water. Consequently, analysts,
policymakers and planners lack suitable data to make informed
decisions.
2. Establish federal oversight for water quantity. The
Environmental Protection Agency has oversight of water quality,
but it's not clear if any agency has oversight of water
quantity.
3. Establish strict standards in building codes for water
efficiency. Building codes should include revised standards for
low-flow appliances, water-heating efficiency, purple-piping
for reclaimed water, rain barrels and so forth in order to
reduce both water and energy consumption.
4. Invest heavily in water-related R&D to match recent
increases in energy-related R&D. R&D investments are an
excellent policy option for the federal government because
state/local governments and industry usually are not in a
position to adequately invest in research. Consequently, the
amount of R&D in the water sector is much lower than for other
sectors such as pharmaceuticals, technology, or energy.
Furthermore, since energy-related R&D is expected to go through
a surge in funding, it would be appropriate from the
perspective of the energy-water nexus to raise water-related
R&D in a commensurate way. Topics for R&D include low-energy
water treatment, novel approaches to desalination, remote leak
detectors for water infrastructure, and air-cooling systems for
power plants. In addition, DoE's R&D program for biofuels
should emphasize feedstocks such as cellulosic sources or algae
that do note require freshwater irrigation.
5. Support the use of reclaimed water at powerplants,
industry and agriculture. Using reclaimed water for
powerplants, industry and agriculture spares a significant
amount of energy. However there are financing, regulatory and
permitting hurdles in place that restrict this option.
6. Rethink water markets. Water is widely expected to be free
and unlimited, even though water is a limited resource that we
should value highly. Consequently, it is worthwhile to consider
implementing water markets that balance our competing needs to
meet our social justice and human rights goals (that is,
everyone needs water to survive, whether rich or poor), while
also meeting our need to discourage water waste through high
prices. Block pricing, whereby the first amount of water usage
is cheap or free in order to meet our survival needs, after
which the price escalates significantly in order to curtail
water use for non-critical purposes, might be a fruitful
approach.

The energy-water nexus is a complicated, important issue, and so I
am very pleased to know that you are being attentive to the matter.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I'll be pleased to
answer questions at the appropriate time.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. House.

STATEMENT OF LON W. HOUSE, PH.D., ENERGY ADVISOR, THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES, CAMERON PARK, CA

Mr. House. Good morning. My name is Lon House. I'm the
Energy Advisor to the Association of California Water Agencies.
I'm the Water Energy Consultant to the California Public
Utilities Commission. I'm a Water Energy Researcher for the
California Energy Commission.
I'm going to be talking about one of the issues that this
bill addresses which is the amount of energy that's in the
water. The SB 531 calls for several studies to collect data on
energy uses and water delivery and treatment. That's a very
good first step.
We did it backward in California. We went out and started
water energy pilots. It got bogged down because we didn't have
defensible data on how much energy was actually in the water
that were being saved by these pilots. So I just wanted to
congratulate you guys on doing things sequentially and in the
correct order and getting the data there first.
There is a lot of energy in the water in the United States.
On the electricity side about 18 percent of all the electricity
in the U.S. is used somewhere in the water, on the water side.
The water systems use about 4 percent to procure the water,
treat it, distribute it, collect the waste water.
The residential consumers use about five and a half
percent. Agricultural/industrial sector uses about another
eight and a half percent to treat and process their water. The
projections of energy use in this area, as you've heard are
anticipated to increase faster than the rate of population due
primarily to accessing previously unused water sources and
increased treatment requirements.
As other parties on this panel have said one of the nice
things about water is anytime that you save water, you're going
to save energy because there is energy in the water. There's
three principles ways that my testimony goes into detail about
how to solve this.
One is to reduce the amount of energy that's embedded in
the water delivered. This is to reduce the amount of energy,
improve the efficiency of the water systems that are
delivering, supplying and treating that water.
The second is to reduce the amount of energy used by the
customers and the amount of water used by the customers. As
I've previously stated the end use is actually a higher usage
of electricity than the water delivery systems.
Then the third thing that I wanted to highlight is to
increase the amount of renewable energy generated by the water
agencies. In California the water agencies in California have a
peak demand of about 2,800 megawatts. We have over 3,000
megawatts renewable generation, the water agencies have.
I would just like to leave you real quickly with a couple
of recommendations.
One is that you currently have on appliances the energy
star program. You also have the EPA water sense program, but
those are never combined. So that would be one of the things
that you could do is on water appliances. Then a customer could
look at that and say, this is how much water I'm saving and how
much energy I'm saving from that particular appliance.
You could produce legislation that would encourage the use
of renewable energy resources to address the energy needs
associated with various aspects of water energy use. The Energy
Efficiency and Conservation block grant program in the 2008
Energy bill exclude water systems. You could change that so
that water systems could have access to that particular money.
I would encourage that this committee look at Federal
agencies and require Federal agencies to use life cycle costing
and to include water and energy savings in their evaluation of
new technologies, particularly for things such as new pumps and
things like that.
Then the last thing I would leave you with is there is
still a lot of work that could be done in this area. The
Federal agencies, the Department of Energy and the EPA could
and should expand research on improving the efficiency of water
supplies, water systems, water and waste water treatment and in
water use.
Thank you for allowing me to provide these comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. House follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lon W. House, Ph.D., Energy Advisor, the
Association of California Water Agencies, Cameron Park, CA
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate
the opportunity to address this important legislation. My name is Lon
W. House, Ph.D. I am the president of Water and Energy Consulting\1\,
and I serve as the Energy Advisor to the Association of California
Water Agencies. I am the Water-energy consultant for the California
Public Utilities Commission, and I am a Water-energy researcher for the
California Energy Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Address: 4901 Flying C Road, Cameron Park, Ca 95682. email:
[email protected]. Phone: 530.676.8956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill, S 531, calls for several studies to collect data on
energy usages in water delivery and treatment. This is a laudable
effort that should provide valuable information for future reference.
In addition to the steps taken in your bill, there are other immediate
opportunities to save water and energy that could be implemented now.
My testimony is going to provide suggestions in this area. I recognize
some of these suggestions are out of the scope of this committee but I
am offering them for your consideration as a member of the finance
committee Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski's role on the
Appropriations Committee.
energy in water
The use of water requires energy: energy to procure, treat and
distribute freshwater, and collect and treat wastewater, as well as the
energy the customer puts into water to heat/cool, pressurize, and treat
the water for their use. Nationwide, residential consumers alone use
5.5 percent of all the electricity in the U.S. to heat, treat, and
pressurize water for their domestic use\2\. The commercial, industrial,
and agricultural sectors can use another 8.5 percent of the electricity
consumed nationally for their water processing and treatment\3\. The
water and wastewater sector consumes about 4 percent of electricity
used in the U.S. to supply water to customers and treat the wastewater
produced\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U. S Household Electricity Report, Table US-1, Energy
Information Administration, available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
reps/enduse/er01_us.html (for residential use) and http://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_1.html for total
electricity consumption.
\3\ California Energy Commission (CEC), 2005. ``California's Water-
Energy Relationship.'' Final Staff Report, June 2005 CEC-700-2005-011
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-
2005-011-SF.PDF
\4\ EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute, 2002. Water and
Sustainability (Volume 4): U. S. Electricity Consumption for Water
Supply & Treatment--The Next Half Century, No. 1006787, Palo Alto,
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
projections of energy use in water
There is an increasing need to address water conservation and
associated energy conservation in the water sector. There are areas of
the U.S. that are subject to chronic water shortages\5\, and the energy
used for providing and using water is expected to significantly exceed
population growth. In the next decade, water systems are expected to
add significant amounts of new electrical load as they access
previously unused water sources and address increased treatment
requirements\6\. Over the next 45 years, electricity demand associated
with supplying water and its treatment is expected to double, alongside
population growth. Irrigation pumping and industrial uses (excluding
mining), however, are projected to triple in that same time frame\7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ``Freshwater
Supply: States' View of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Shortages'', GAO-03-514, July 9, 2003
\6\ House, L. W.2007. ``Will Water Cause The Next Electricity
Crisis?'' Water Resources Impact 9 (1), January 2007.
\7\ ``Energy Demands On Water Resources'', Report To Congress On
The Interdependence Of Energy And Water, U.S. Department Of Energy,
December 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
water programs have dual water and energy impacts
Water conservation and efficiency programs have several
characteristics that make them more attractive than simple energy
conservation programs.
Water efficiency saves water and energy--energy efficiency saves only
energy
Every time you save water you also are saving the energy that was
previously used to treat and distribute that water. Water conservation
and efficiency programs give you a double environmental impact for your
dollar.
Water efficiency savings are more permanent
Energy efficiency tends to reduce the rate of increase in energy
use. This is due to the substitution effect, where the energy savings
that are realized with a more efficient appliance or application are
often replaced by the energy use of another appliance (the energy
savings that come from a more efficient refrigerator are replaced when
the customer buys a new flat screen TV). However, when a customer buys
a more efficient clothes washer or installs low water landscaping, they
don't usually turn around and use that water somewhere else in their
house.
The following graph shows that California, through billions of
dollars of investments in energy efficiency, has managed to stabilize
its per capita electricity usage.* By comparison, California has
reduced its per capita water usage by 50 percent in the last 40 years.
The state's total annual water consumption has remained the same since
1970 even as its population has doubled to nearly 37 million. Its per
capita water use has plunged to less than half of what it was then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graphs have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
water systems have an interest, ability, and proclivity to invest in
more renewable generation
Water and wastewater systems have a unique opportunity to
significantly increase the amount of renewable generation available.
They have electrical load (pumping and treatment facilities), available
land (for solar and wind), fuel sources (for biogas), and multiple
sites for hydroelectric generation. Already in California, water and
wastewater agencies have renewable generation over 3,000 MW of existing
capacity, with more than 1,000 MW of additional capacity under
consideration. Across the nation, these systems have the facilities,
professional staff, and local leadership capability to play a
foundational role in transforming the nation's energy policy if the
proper incentives are available and current impediments are reduced.

Demand/Generation Statistics of California Water Agencies

Demand and Demand Response

Water agencies in California currently2,800+ MW
maximum demand
Water agencies curtail approximately 400+ MW of on-peak
demand

Water agency generation

500+ MW of existing standby generators available
Hydro--2,547 MW existing, +255 MW new small in-conduit
potential
Biogas--57 MW, +36 MW new potential
Wind--1 MW, + unknown potential
Natural gas engines--existing100 MW, +200 MW
additional potential
Solar--18 MW installed, 48 MW under construction, +500
MW being
reviewed by water agencies.
options for energy reductions in water sector
Looking at water systems comprehensively (addressing both the
consumer and the supply systems) and ensuring conservation, efficiency,
and renewable generation projects are designed in tandem creates even
greater efficiency and conservation opportunities which can result in
significant water and energy savings and dual benefits to the
environment.
There are three principle implementation areas within the water
sector: 1) reduce the energy embedded in water delivered, 2) reduce the
energy in the water used by customers and amount of water used by
customers, and 3) increase the amount of renewable generation by water
agencies.
1. Reduce the energy embedded in water delivered
Provide incentives to water systems to invest in more efficient
system configuration, components, and operation to improve energy
efficiency and to reduce peak electric demand.
Energy Efficiency (system redesign and retrofitting of equipment,
low-friction pipe, high efficient pumps, adjustable speed drive motors,
SCADA [Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition] system installation
with real-time pump and process integration, efficient lighting,
increased efficiency treatment options). 25% of industrial electricity
use and 50% of municipal and wastewater use is due to pumps. High
efficiency pumps are typically 20% more efficient. Purchasers typically
use lowest installed cost--not lifecycle cost, and purchase the less
efficient options. Pumps have a 15-20 year typical life, so the pumps
purchased today will be consuming electricity for a long time. Variable
Frequency Drives (VFDs) are also a good option on pumps with varying
demand to reduce electricity consumed.
Peak Electric Demand/Demand Response (increased storage,
aggregation of water system utility accounts, SCADA system
installation, improvements to primary/secondary water and wastewater
treatment). All water systems have some sort of water storage to
accommodate varying demands for water throughout the day. They can use
that storage to reduce their pumping during the electrical peak demand
periods. In California, the water agencies in the state typically
reduce their electrical demand by 400 MW during on-peak hours\8\.
Increased water storage facilities could result in hundreds of MWs of
additional on-peak electrical demand reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ House, L.W., ``Water Supply Related Electricity Demand in
California'', Demand Response Research Center Report, LBNL-62041,
December 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve leak detection and reduce system loss (SCADA improvements,
Automated Meter Reading (AMR)/Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
installation). There is always some leakage within water systems, due
to the necessity to maintain a pressure differential between inside the
system and outside the system. As systems age they develop more leaks.
The development of relatively inexpensive AMI and AMI allows almost
instantaneous feedback on water movement throughout the water
distribution system and can allow leaks to be identified and addressed
rapidly.
Increase energy utility investments in water system efficiency and
demand response. One of the frustrations in California has been the
relative lack of ability of water systems to participate in utility
energy conservation programs\9\. While this is slowly changing, the
utility energy conservation programs typically address energy systems
they are familiar with--air conditioning, lighting, heating, etc.--that
do not apply to water system efficiency improvements. The ability of
increased water system storage to reduce peak electrical demands
likewise has been neglected by utility programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ House, L.W. ``Public Versus Private Customer Perspectives on
Participation in Demand-side Programs'', Strategic Planning for Energy
and the Environment, Volume 27, No. 3, Winter 2008, pg 59-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase use of recycled water. The use of recycled water for
agricultural, industrial and commercial purposes and for outdoor
irrigation results in significant reductions in the demand for water
from the environment and in the amount of energy needed by the water
sector. The wastewater has to be treated anyway. If that water can be
used in lieu of additional fresh water it saves not only all that water
but all the energy associated with providing the additional fresh
water. California has a state policy that no fresh water can be used
for electrical production if there are available alternatives--
including recycled water--recycled water is a major component of
existing and future water supplies. Capture and use of stormwater and
rainwater. The use of stormwater and rainwater to supplement fresh
water sources can significantly enhance available fresh water supplies
and are often at energy costs lower than other new sources of fresh
water.
Increase research on improving energy efficiency of water
systems
Improvements in the energy efficiency of water systems will have
long lasting results. Additional research needs to be accomplished in
the following areas.

Reductions in energy requirements of new water
supplies (desalination, membrane technology, well head
treatment, integrated water system planning, natural
treatments systems)
Reductions in energy requirements of water
distribution and service systems
Reductions in energy requirements of wastewater
treatment and recycled water systems.
2. Reduce the energy in the water used by customers and amount of water
used by customers
Provide incentives that encourage customers to more efficiently use
existing water supplies and to reduce water demand which saves both
water and energy.
New appliance efficiency standards (residential and commercial
clothes washers, dishwashers, clothes dryers, pool and spa pumps and
heaters, showerheads and faucets, toilets, urinals, landscaping
irrigation). New appliance standards should be evaluated based upon the
contributions of both their water and energy savings.
Rebates/grants/tax credits for efficient appliances that go beyond
current standards (aggressive production tax credits spur market share
growth for the most energy and water efficient appliances, combine
ENERGY STAR and WATERSENSE labeling). More efficient water-using
appliances save both water and energy--directly, as in the case of
water heaters, dishwashers, clothes washers--indirectly, by reducing
water use as in the case of high efficiency toilets. Incentives for
increased efficiency should involve both water and energy savings.
Improve leak detection (AMR/AMI installation). The development of
relatively inexpensive AMI and AMI allows almost real-time water
consumption information, which makes customer leak detection virtually
instantaneous, as the following graph illustrates. This allows customer
leaks to be identified and fixed much more rapidly than has been the
case in the past.
Incorporate water efficiency requirements into new construction and
upon resale (LEED standards, plumbing fixtures, appliances, landscape
and landscape irrigation, cooling towers, decorative and recreational
water features). New construction and transfer of ownership presents a
unique opportunity to reduce water consumption which, once
accomplished, continues to save water and energy for an extended period
of time.
Increase electric and gas utility programs in water programs. There
is a need to increase electric and gas utility programs in water
efficient appliances and processes. Allowing energy utilities to
partner with water systems on water conservation projects as part of
their energy saving portfolios has tremendous potential. California has
a pilot program through the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) that allows the investor owned energy utilities (IOUs) to
partner with water providers to implement jointly funded programs
designed to save energy via water savings\10\. This pilot focuses on
efforts that conserve water, use less energy-intensive water, make
delivery and treatment systems more efficient, and determine actual
water savings and actual energy savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A.07-01-024 et. al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Increase the amount of renewable energy generated by water agencies.
Provide incentives and remove impediments for water systems to
become more energy self-sufficient and, where possible, to feed
renewable power into the grid. It should be noted that the majority of
water systems are government owned, and traditional incentives such as
tax credits have limited effectiveness. About 85 percent of the fresh
water systems serving more than 10,000 people in the U.S. are publicly
owned, and about 91 percent of systems serving more than 100,000 people
are publicly owned. Nearly all of the wastewater treatment plants are
owned by public institutions (municipalities or specially designated
districts)\11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USEPA, 2002. Community Water System Survey, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.,
December 2002, EPA 815-R-02-005A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebates/grants for renewable generation including small
hydroelectric, in-conduit hydroelectric, solar, biogas and wind
generation. California has a couple programs in this area: the
California Solar Initiative (CSI) that deals primarily with solar and
the California Self Generation Incentive Program which deals with other
types of renewables. For the CSI, California has two levels of
incentives--one for tax paying entities that can take advantage of tax
credits, and another higher incentive level for those entities that
cannot use tax credits. There are constraints in both these programs
that result in less renewable generation developing than would
otherwise be the case. Specifically, there is a low maximum size
allowed (on the order of 1 MW per installation) that results larger
projects not being developed, and the requirement that all energy
produced must be used on site also truncates the size of these
installations.
Tax Credits that promote private public partnerships for renewable
energy installation and energy production. The ability of public
entities to use tax credits like the CREBS (Clean Renewable Energy
Bonds) to develop renewable energy projects provides access to money
that would otherwise be unavailable to the public entities. PG&E
(Pacific Gas & Electric Company) recently filed an Application for
Photovoltaic Program with the CPUC in which they are seeking
partnerships in the development of solar projects with guaranteed
prices for the solar electricity.
Net Energy Metering programs allow the offset of retail rates with
the renewable generation. Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariffs in
California allow renewable generation to be credited against retail
rates for electricity at the specific location. A major disadvantage of
this program is that any electricity generated in excess of use is not
compensated for. This results in much smaller renewable projects
(particularly solar) than may be economically attractive, as there is
no ability to sell excess electricity generated to the utility.
Remote Net Metering Programs that allow renewable generation at one
location to be credited against a portion of retail rates another
system location. California's AB (Assembly Bill) 2466 is called the
Local Government Renewable Energy Self-Generation Program and is
codified as Section 2830 of the Public Utilities Code. It allows
government entities to generate renewable energy at one location, and
have it credited against part (the generation part only) of retail
rates at another location. It's size limit is1 MW and the inability to
access any other incentives in the development of the renewable project
are limiting its usefulness.
Renewables Feed-In Tariffs that provide a utility standard contract
with specified renewable energy price. California's Assembly Bill (AB)
1969 added Public Utilities Code Section 399.20, authorizing tariffs
and standard contracts for the purchase of eligible renewable
generation from public water and wastewater facilities. It has size
limitations (1 MW) and the inability to access any other incentives in
the development of the renewable project is resulting in less renewable
generation that could be developed.
conclusion and recommendations
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss these issues before this
Committee. I would like to make the following suggestions.

1. Legislation should recognize and encourage the economic
and environmental benefits associated with the energy
efficiency-water use efficiency/conservation. Two practical
things that could be done now are to combine the DOE energy
star program with the EPA Watersense program for water using
appliances, and promote the use of recycled water, especially
where its use would result in a lower overall energy footprint
and have positive environmental impacts.
2. Legislation should encourage the use of renewable energy
sources to address energy needs associated with all aspects of
water use--recognizing that most of the water systems are
publicly owned. Expand the energy efficiency and conservation
block grant program in the 2007 energy bill to allow water
agencies to be eligible units of local governments. Expand the
funding for the CREBS bond program.
3. Legislation should encourage federal agencies to identify
opportunities to advance energy and water efficiency, including
alternative/renewable sources of energy. Federal installations
should be required to use life cycle costs in the procurement
process, and take into consideration both the water and energy
savings that result from more efficient technologies and
processes.
4. Federal Agencies (the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency) should expand research on
improving the energy efficiency of water supplies, water
systems, water and wastewater treatment, and in water use.

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Why don't we call on
Senator Murkowski for any comments she has at this point before
we go to questions.

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA

Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's taken me a
little bit longer to move today so I apologize. But I
appreciate the opportunity to hear the testimony from the
witnesses today on this issue of energy and water and how the
two relate.
I think we're all interested in the connection between the
two. All forms of energy, fuel extraction, fuel refinement,
energy production, energy distribution it all comes together
with water and affects our water resources in some manner. So
by identifying the relative linkages between energy and water
systems and our key research needs I think we certainly get a
greater return on our investment research in the development,
the commercialization of energy and water technologies.
I think we recognize that an energy technology that is
cheap to produce and has zero emissions is useless if it's
really going to consume more water than we can supply. I don't
think that we think about that in the general course of our
discussion about our energy consumption. We need to be thinking
about it.
So I'm pleased to see that we're placing this emphasis on
the water use efficiency and recognize that the work that we're
doing in our legislation is going to be focusing on this. So I
appreciate the comments from the gentlemen this morning.
The Chairman. Did you want to go ahead and ask questions or
do you want me to ask some first and then you? How would you
like to? Ok.
Let me start and ask a few questions. One of the issues
Senator Corker raised in his opening comments was that solar
thermal requires a great deal of water. I think some of you
have made reference to that.
I'm not clear though as to whether this is consumption of
water or whether this is just use of water. Because my
impression is that for example our large utility in New Mexico
was getting ready to put in a solar thermal facility or at
least they hope to. I thought that the water they would be
using in that operation would be largely recycled. That was my
impression.
Any of you have an opinion on that? Dr. Webber.
Mr. Webber. For a solar thermal system you have a loop of
water you use for the process loop to create the power and then
a cooling loop. You have two different loops of water. The
cooling loop is important for solar thermal. It does use a lot
of water for cooling, the way coal or other hot power plants
might.
It's not clear how much water needs because we don't have
many data points or many examples, actually and so existing
power plants use more water, as was noted earlier. However some
new data I just got last week from the National Renewable
Energy lab in Golden, Colorado from the Department of Energy
suggests that solar thermals needs less water than coal and
nuclear. I'll be happy to get those data out after this.
So it's not clear. It definitely needs water, solar thermal
does for its cooling loops. Solar photovoltaics generally do
not is the main distinction.
The Chairman. Dr. Gleick.
Mr. Gleick. Yes, if I might add just a quick point. Systems
like solar thermal and fossil fuels and nuclear require a lot
of water for cooling. The amount of water they consume depends
largely on the type of cooling system they have.
The cheapest cooling systems to install consume the most
water. More expensive cooling systems can be put in that
recycle a lot of the water in the cooling systems. So in part
the answer to your question depends on what we're willing to
spend for the cooling system which in part depends on how
scarce the water is in the particular place we're building the
plants.
The Chairman. Ok. Dr. House.
Mr. House. This last week we just ran into exactly this
issue in California. There's a big solar thermal facility
that's proposed to go in Southern California. They were
proposing like Dr. Gleick says wet cooling which is evaporative
cooling.
Now they're having to come back because you know California
has a policy that no fresh water can be used for power plant
production if there's an alternative. So this solar thermal
facility is now having to come back and it's considerably more
expensive. But they're having to go to recycle or to what they
call dry cooling towers because of the amount of fresh water
that they were proposed to use.
The Chairman. Ok. Let me ask you, Mr. Bolze. Your
suggestion, that we consider an investment tax credit of 30
percent to drive increased water reuse.
We are being urged to increase the investment tax credit
for cogeneration of heat and power from 10 percent to 30
percent. You're suggesting that a similar tax credit would be
appropriate for in this area. That it would result in
substantial savings in energy.
Could you just elaborate on that?
Mr. Bolze. Yes. What I wanted to point out is some feedback
that we get from our customer base around the world. To give
you a sense in our written testimony I laid out that there's
some numbers that says that the U.S. reuses about 6 percent of
its water on the industrial side. To give you a sense,
Australia is about 8 percent. But they have incentives in the
plate to get that to 30 percent by 2013.
Singapore is at 15 percent, going to 30 percent by 2010.
Israel is at 70 percent. So as we look at it there is
opportunities, clearly, to reuse more of the water that's used
in industrial and power generation.
To the point that I brought up on investment tax credits--
--
The Chairman. Let me just ask on that.
Mr. Bolze. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you have the specific policies that each
of those countries has put in place to increase water reuse?
Could we get access to that?
Mr. Bolze. We do. We have a white paper.
The Chairman. Ok.
Mr. Bolze. That we've had out for about 6 to 9 months.
There are a variety of different policies. Not every country
employs the same policy. But there are a number of different
ones. But we can provide that.
The Chairman. That would be great if you would.
Mr. Bolze. Back to the investment tax credits, of our over
50,000 customers today, I would say that less than 1 percent
are really applying any material reuse of water. When you
really bore into that it comes down to economics. Right now,
today, it's less expensive to pull water from ground river,
municipal systems than it is to invest in water reuse.
That's why we support the NAS study in laying the associate
economics of that. We as a company have not studied that, but
our customers say as you look at a tax credit it allows them to
look at that more holistically. So that was the point we were
trying to raise.
The Chairman. Good. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. You know they always say that water is
the next oil in terms of the fight and the competition. I truly
believe that we're going that way. When you understand how all
that we're trying to do as we move to this new world of
renewables and recognizing that you can't get there from here
without significant water. The phrase water becomes the new oil
is even more realistic.
Tell me where we need additional Federal engagement on the
energy/water issues. Mr. Webber, you alluded to it saying you
know, we're not even using the same unit measures in parts of
the country. What should we be doing from the Federal
perspective?
Are there any institutions that should be specifically
involved or strengthened to provide for more effective policy?
I throw that out to anyone of you.
Mr. Webber. There are several agencies that I think should
be involved. The Department of Energy certainly is already
involved in the energy/water nexus. They should continue that.
They may lead on some R and D efforts.
The United States Geological Survey has taken the, sort of,
lead on collecting data related to water, water quantity at
least. I'd like to see that role expanded and continued. The
data collection that they offer, unfortunately is limited and
infrequent. I think that needs to be done in a much more
systematic and supported way.
Those data would be very valuable for people like us having
these discussions. So that's one easy way for Federal
Government to engage. Because you have the capacity for data
collection and management that states would have difficulty
with.
Senator Murkowski. I have a comment on that. Several years
ago I introduced legislation that would enhance and build the
stream monitoring gauges in the State of Alaska. We recognize
that if we want to do anything more with development we've got
to know what the baseline is. We don't have any baseline.
I know that we're at a disadvantage in my State. But I
think that we're similarly disadvantaged throughout the rest of
the Nation in understanding what those real resources are. Any
other comments to the question?
Dr. Gleick.
Mr. Gleick. Yes, if I might add a few. I think that there
are many issues among water and energy that are local. But
there are a lot of series of Federal responsibilities.
One thing we might consider is phasing out irrigation
energy crop subsidies that promote wasteful use of water and
energy together. Another is, and I've made these
recommendations already. Smart labeling of appliances, better
appliance efficiency standards, research and development on
energy technologies that reduce water demands.
The concept of using alternative sources of water for power
plant cooling has come up. But I think probably should be
pursued more aggressively. The example of the Palo Verde
nuclear plant, it's the only plant in the country, nuclear
plant that uses reclaimed water for cooling.
There's an opportunity to use recycled or reclaimed water
for cooling in a lot of places or brackish ground water that we
can't use for irrigation or other things. Look at other sources
of water for meeting some of our energy needs. We should
encourage biofuels development only when it's not water
intensive.
Dr. Webber talked about that. There have been a number of
Federal policies on the energy side that have not integrated
the water issue and if had integrated them together we would of
perhaps made a different choice.
Then finally this issue of a water census has come up on
the House side. There is some legislation proposing that the
U.S. do a comprehensive assessment of the water resources of
the Nation both what we have and what we use and how we use it.
We don't have such a census.
The USGS is the perfect place to do such a thing. They do
work in both of those areas, water availability and water use.
But we ought to be doing a regular census of how much water we
use and where and how. That would help on the energy side as
well.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is an
outstanding hearing. I think the testimony has been most
useful.
The census issue you just mentioned, Dr. Gleick. We had an
issue in our State where folks were considering shipping water
down to another city which was, you know, in my opinion, not
intelligent. Because if you look at the whole issue of
sustainability.
I mean the energy uses into the future are going to be
huge. I think the comment you just made about maybe having an
inventory of that, if you will, for the future and for cities
and states to be using that as a measurement as to their
sustainability into the future is something I think is very
important. So you know, here today we've talked about the fact
that wind and solar voltaic uses no water. Biofuels which we
actually are pursuing heavily in our State uses a lot of water.
Ok, I think that's good for all of us to know.
Our State also uses a lot of coal to be candid. We use a
lot of nuclear power also. We have a lot of discussions here in
Washington about carbon sequestration, capture and
sequestration. I'm a skeptic. It's sort of like when donkeys
fly we'll be doing that on a commercial basis.
But it seems to me the whole issue of water makes that even
more difficult. Because when you capture, as Dr. House was
talking about, the fact is when you capture electricity it uses
more electricity to do that. It makes it less efficient, if you
will.
But then second a lot of water is used in that process. I
wondered if each of you or those of you who wish to might
respond to how you think water usage really plays into the
whole issue of carbon capture and sequestration?
Mr. Webber. So I'll make a couple comments. Firstly you
often use water as a process chemical to stress separate out
the carbon dioxide. You bubble your smokestack gases through a
solution that has water. That's one way water shows up.
That itself is water and then it becomes parasitology, you
already heard, where it lowers the efficiency of the power
plant. So that affects your total water use per kilowatt hour
that's useful. Then you can impact water quality if you don't
sequester carefully. So you have to be careful how you
sequester and where you store your CO2 when you
liquefy it and put it into the system.
In Texas we've been doing carbon sequestration injection
for advanced oil recovery for a few decades. In a lot of the
permeating centers around water quality ensuring you don't
pollute the water systems. So it's an important, complicated
system. You start to see energy/water/carbon tradeoffs.
There are some simple synergies, things that are good for
energy that reduce energy, also reduce carbon and reduce water
and vice versa. But now we have these more complicated
interactions where things that are good for carbon, like
biofuels, might be bad for water. But things that are good for
water, like dry cooling. If you don't do it right, it might be
bad for carbon.
So we have to be very thoughtful about this. There's
definitely very complicated relationship, but they can't all be
overcome. But you do have to sort of pay attention ahead of
time.
Mr. House. One of the things that the water agencies in
California says, you know we have a little more rigorous goal
on greenhouse gases than the rest of the country has. But, so
one of the things that the water agencies in California do, and
is, they're determining their carbon footprint. This is where
the renewables comes in.
What they're doing is we're building renewables to
basically offset the amount of electricity that we're using. In
my testimony I have a description of what kind of technologies
are out there and how much the water agencies are doing. But
one of the things which, the two things which has really
happened is one is that the water agencies, the largest single
group of solar installations of the State and the other is that
for biogas, basically it will be impossible to flair biogas
from waste water treatment facilities.
So what the water agencies are doing is they're taking that
and they're running it through generators now and they're using
biogas to do that. So at least, I think that from that one
market segment which is for a particular water industry. They
have, at least in California, and I think the rest of the
country, they have the space and they have the interest to try
and offset their carbon emissions completely or fairly
significantly through the installation of renewable generation
on their locations.
Mr. Gleick. Senator, you're asking a great question. I
don't know of any real research that's been done on the water
implications of sequestration. It may have been done. But if it
hasn't, it's a great example of the need to look at water when
you make an energy decision.
Sequestration is one of the many solutions we're going to
have to think about in dealing with carbon. Obviously the best
way to get carbon out of the atmosphere is not to put it there
in the first place. If we have to sequester carbon it's going
to be very expensive to do. It's considered an option but we
have to think about the implications.
The final point is here, you pointed out about the census.
One of the reasons why this is a national, should be a
national, not a local or a State effort that I give a water
census. It's precisely because we have State boundaries. Our
watershed boundaries don't pay attention to State boundaries.
Water crosses political borders. So you don't want a State
doing a census. You want a watershed census.
The Colorado River is shared by seven states. A lot of the
rivers in the Southeast are shared by multiple states. It's the
perfect example of where a Federal role in doing an evaluation
of how much water we have, where it is and who uses it, is
appropriate.
Mr. Bolze. Senator, the only thing I would add is again, as
was mentioned earlier, looking at energy, water and the carbon
issues are interrelated, obviously. We don't have any specific
data around on carbon sequestration. We're obviously involved
with some projects to look at that with our customer base.
But I agree with your point. It needs to be studied as they
look at that investment. I think, as was mentioned earlier,
carbon sequestration is used in a number of areas and has been
for a number of years in the area of enhanced oil recovery.
As our customer base, some of the customer base looks at
carbon sequestration, they have to look at the economics of
that sequestration system that has to be put into place and how
that works for the total cost of, you know, their output of
production. So I agree with your point. It's got to be looked
at, not only for coal gasification or for coal plants with
carbon sequestration, but also with all of the various energy
options.
I believe those economics will vary based on location,
obviously climate, location because the technologies perform
differently and it also is dependent on the water scarcity in
that specific region.
Mr. Bauer. I would just add that there is carbon
sequestration work at the Department of Energy in which NETL,
National Energy Technology Laboratory leads and coordinates the
regional partnerships across the country. Water and the impact
of sequestration injection is part of those considerations.
Having said that, there is data coming out, but there's a great
sensitivity to that as Dr. Webber pointed out, a good example
is the EOR. It's been done for decades where water is one of
the issues that must be dealt with in a permitting process. So
obviously water is something that must be dealt with.
There is another side of this; in the bill it talks about
the nexus of energy and water, but it kind of emphasizes the
energy side of it. I think the dependence of water on the
availability of energy must be considered as well. Because as
Steve just said, if you don't have the energy to move the
water, you don't have the water.
So the quantity of energy needed has to be traded off
against how you deal with it, which is all the variables we
have to deal with in both water, carbon dioxide and energy.
They have to interplay both on the banks of technical and
potential, positive or negative results. But also the economic
impacts are substantial and have to be considered in the
tradeoffs.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you all.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome the panel. Thank the chairman and the ranking member
for holding this important hearing. The water supplies are
important in all parts of our country. But certainly in the
West we, as in the Rocky Mountain West, we really know, living
in an arid climate, the challenges that we face.
I think you can measure society's health with a number of
different metrics. The energy supplies for one, based on where
the accessibility, the affordability, the predictability, you
could do the same thing with water and water supplies. The two
are interrelated as our hearing is showing us here today.
Dr. Gleick, I note of some interest to you, you talked
about the potential we had some 100 years ago or 150 years ago
to organize the West in particular on watersheds. There's a
well known Civil War Major, one armed veteran, Major Powell who
made that very proposal. We're now trying in the West to govern
ourselves based on his principles.
It's an opportunity lost. Nonetheless we have to move
forward. So I appreciate your making that point.
I have been in an Armed Services hearing, so forgive me for
arriving a bit late. I know the Chairman pursued a question
around whether incentives for water reuse. I wanted to follow
on with the panel with this question.
Are there regulations and policies that stand in the way of
increased water reuse and recycling for industry, business and
homes? What are these and how could Congress address these
issues? Would anybody on the panel like to dive in and take a
shot at answering that question?
Dr. House, you? California experiences would be
informative.
Mr. House. In California water reuse really isn't much of
an issue because we do it and particularly in Southern
California. If you look at the new sources of water supply that
we're looking at, conservation is Number 1 and reuse is Number
2. Within a few years, probably within the next decade there
will probably be no waste water that has been treated that's
sent out to the environment, to the ocean anymore.
We're using it. There's something like 250 cities that are
using it on parks and it's used for agriculture. It's used for,
as I said earlier, for power plant treat, for power plant water
use. Basically the policy basically prohibits the use of fresh
water at power plants in California.
What that's done is it forced the number of the new power
plants to go to reclaimed water. Then the other thing that is
happening particularly in the Southern part of the State is
that the reclaimed water is used for aquifer recharge. So at
least in California and I can't speak for the rest of the
country, but reclaimed water and water reuse is one of the
building blocks to get to the future for the State.
Senator Udall. So from your experience there are no Federal
laws or policies that get in the way of the policies that
you're pursuing in California proper?
Mr. House. I am unaware of any. The one thing that does
sort of come into this depending on what you use the reclaimed
water for, you have to treat it to a much lower standard if
you're going to use it say, in a power plant than if you're
going to use it to recharge an aquifer. So for example, if you
used it to recharge an aquifer you basically have to treat it
to drinking water standards, the waste water, to drinking water
standards before you put it back into the aquifer.
So it does have some impact upon the level of treatment
that you use depending upon what the use of the recycled water
is.
Senator Udall. Other panelists.
Mr. Bolze. Senator, just addressing the other side of your
question in terms of are there additional policies or such or
what are the policy options that are available. I had mentioned
earlier that we have a white paper that just addresses what are
some of the other options for water scarcity, addressing water
scarcity through recycling and reuse. We can make that
available.
What I boil it down to is a couple things. Some of which
we've talked about. One of which is just around education
outreach which is just a little more visibility around the
various water usages and statistics by location. I know this
committee is looking at that as part of its legislation.
Second of which is, as we talked about is some countries
around the world are looking at direct incentives be those for
investment tax credits. Some are looking at accelerated
depreciation policies. There's different ways to do that. I
wouldn't say there's one that's perfect but there are a variety
of ways to look at direct incentives.
The third of which is some countries are looking at
mandates and regulations around specific water reuse or percent
reuse.
I think the fourth of which has to do with your earlier
question which is around removing barriers, if they do exist,
be it at the local level, the State level, the Federal level
and such.
So I think there are a variety of different options. What
we have seen as we talk to people, not only in the United
States but around the world is there's different ways to go at
this. But right now I would say the biggest issue we hear back
from our customers is again back to the point of the economics
of using/reusing water that's been say treated for industrial
purposes verses then going and getting new water from the
ground or wells etcetera. The economics better supports going
out and using new water. So just some options for the
committee.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a
very useful hearing. It raises all kinds of questions.
Let me ask a probably stupid one, but one that occurs to
me. Mr. Bauer, you indicated and I think that the vocabulary of
the panel indicates that water is reused. There is a difference
between use and consumption because it goes, evaporates and
then it comes down in rain.
That raises the question is there a finite amount water in
the planet that is disappearing as a result of human activity?
Mr. Gleick. Senator, there's no such thing as a stupid
question.
Senator Bennett. Just stupid people who ask them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gleick. No. The amount of water on the planet is fixed.
What's not fixed is where it is and when it is.
Senator Bennett. Alright.
Mr. Gleick. It moves in and out of stocks of water, lakes,
ground water, oceans and flows of water, flows in the river,
rainfall. It's constantly in motion. It's a hydrologic cycle.
What we worry about is two things. Withdrawal of water,
just the total amount of water that is withdrawn to do
something. For power plant cooling it's a tremendous amount----
Senator Bennett. When it is withdrawn from your first
statement, it doesn't disappear?
Mr. Gleick. Not always.
Senator Bennett. Ok.
Mr. Gleick. There are problems with withdrawal, only
withdrawal, not consumption if you're in a place that just
doesn't have much water where there are already demands for
water. You just can't withdraw anymore. You can't build a new
power plant because all the water is spoken for.
Senator Bennett. So you're talking location?
Mr. Gleick. That's a location question. In other places the
consumption of water which is a small fraction for power, a
much smaller fraction, is typically steam that goes to the
atmosphere. It goes and it disappears in the watershed that use
it and it comes down as rainfall, maybe 1,000 miles away.
Senator Bennett. Ok.
Mr. Gleick. It doesn't disappear but it's no longer useable
where you had it.
Senator Bennett. Alright now it comes down as rainfall. Two
thirds of the world is ocean and we have not yet found a really
economic way to use all the water in the ocean. Desalination is
very expensive and very difficult.
Does this mean there is, by virtue of human activity a
trend away from water on land that we use toward being absorbed
in the oceans? If we go back to your first point that the whole
thing doesn't go away, but the location changes?
Mr. Gleick. No. If you consume water in a watershed it
doesn't affect how much water that watershed gets next year or
next month. That's not, unless you're changing the climate, and
there's long term changes.
Senator Bennett. Yes. Right.
Mr. Gleick. It all ends up in the ocean, goes back. In the
end it comes back again. So the comsumpted use of water doesn't
affect the long term renewability of the water in a watershed.
Desalination, 97 percent of the planet's water is salt
water.
Senator Bennett. Right.
Mr. Gleick. We do know how to desalinate. The technology is
well understood. It's, as you say, expensive.
We will use desalination more and more where we're willing
to pay for it if we evaluate it on equal footing with recycled
water with conservation and if they see when it's cost
effective. I think we'll see more of that.
Senator Bennett. Alright. Dr. House? Thank you for that.
That's helpful to me.
Mr. House, you said there are no Federal requirements that
get in your way of water. You treat it to various levels, an
industrial level, a culinary level, so on. I've had complaints
from municipalities along the Wasatch front that's a provincial
term for people whose cities are at the foot of the Wasatch
Mountains on the west side of it. They are required by Federal
law to clean up the water that goes through their municipality
to drinking water standards when it comes out the back end of
the pipe.
When it comes out the back end of the pipe it immediately
goes into the Great Salt Lake where obviously it is not
drinkable. Is this just unique to Utah or do you have Federal
requirements that get in the way of your reusing water that
raise the cost?
Mr. House. No. There are Federal requirements for various
types of water. In the situation that you're talking about is
kind of unique because what I was talking about is the reuse of
the water. So in California what we typically do is we take the
water. We treat it to some level to our standards.
Senator Bennett. Yes, yes.
Mr. House. Then we reuse it. In your case that water is not
being reused.
Senator Bennett. I know. The Fed standard doesn't pay any
attention to where it goes after it comes out of the pipe.
Mr. House. Nope.
Senator Bennett. If it did then it would say, well you
don't have to do that. It could be to perhaps what you would
call an industrial level. So should the Federal law be adjusted
to say we have to pay attention to the use rather than just say
when it comes out of the end of the pipe it always has to be of
drinking level quality?
Your comment to Senator Udall indicated that maybe there is
that kind of flexibility. My experience is that there's not.
Mr. House. I don't know exactly what--and I'm not here to
make policy.
Senator Bennett. No, I understand that. You're here to
inform us.
Mr. House. But the use of that water, the reclaimed water
is very useful. I think the solution would be to find something
that would use that water in the Salt Lake area. Then you don't
have cleaning up water.
I know that in California we have a lot of issues to in the
area where I live they not only have to treat the water to
drinking water standards, they have to cool it before they send
it back into the environment because it's a trout stream. So I
know that the water agency gripes about that. So, you know,
we've got to cool this water to a certain temperature before we
can put it back into the stream.
But those are policy issues that you guys deal with.
Senator Bennett. Ok, yes. Doctor.
Mr. Gleick. Senator, there is nothing at the Federal level
that prohibits you from not putting the water in Great Salt
Lake, but reusing it. What the barriers are, as we've discussed
financial, sometimes structural because there's no pipe to get
the water from where we have it treated to where we could use
it for outdoor irrigation or for flushing toilets. We don't
even have to use it for drinking.
But the challenge is overcoming those barriers. The
challenge is finding financial incentives so that it now makes
sense not to throw it in Great Salt Lake, but to reuse it
locally rather than finding a new source of pristine water
that's maybe more expensive. It's a financial challenge rather
than a regulatory one.
Senator Bennett. Yes. Ok. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I
could Dr. Webber, you had mentioned that water consumption for
transportation fuels is going to be more than double because of
the new fuel mandates. I was reading a Wall Street Journal. It
was an editorial from October 2007. It talked about ethanol
plants consume roughly four gallons of water to produce each
gallon of fuel.
But it goes on to say that when you count the water needed
to grow the corn one gallon of ethanol requires a staggering
1,700 gallons of water. I wondered if I could ask you to
comment on that? Then a little bit about what you think this
whole impact is going to be on our water supply nationally,
worldwide over the next decade how this may impact different
issues of farming, ranching and others?
Mr. Webber. I think you're exactly right. Early on the
people that focus on how much water was needed for processing
or upgrading to the feed stock, bio feed stocks into fuels.
It's a few gallons of water per gallon of fuel which is not so
different than gasoline or unconventional fossil fuels.
The difference is on the growth side where you're producing
the feed stock. It needs anywhere from 400 to 1,700 gallons of
water per gallon of fuel. That water has to come from
somewhere.
Most of that water comes from rainfall. But about 15 to 20
percent of those crops are produced from irrigation. When
you're using irrigation you're taking it from surface sources,
rivers or lakes or from aquifers. So you can affect water
supply issues.
So there's no question that biofuels are very water
intensive. In some parts of the world you have the water so
it's not a problem. But in some places the water is strained.
You have to take it from aquifers or other finite sources.
So these trends toward biofuels that require irrigation can
be problematic on the water supply system. However there are
ways to grow biofuels without irrigation. You can use other
sources. It doesn't have to be corn. You can use cellulosic
sources or non irrigated sources. Feed stocks can grow in
different types of land, that kind of thing.
So we should be attentive, I think, to the type of feed
stock we're using for sure.
Senator Barrasso [continuing]. Solar power the other day
Senator Kyle was talking about, you know, where the sun is in
Arizona. But due to the lack of water it could be much more
difficult to because of the water demands for using solar
power.
Mr. Webber. It depends on whether you're using solar panels
that are photovoltaic power or solar thermal. Solar thermal
needs water for cooling, certainly.
Senator Barrasso. Ok.
Mr. Webber. It's not clear exactly how much it needs
compared to coal or nuclear power.
Senator Barrasso. Ok. Mr. Bolze, if I could. You note in
the last paragraph of your testimony you said there is also
good news on the coal front. Since we know that coal is the
most available, abundant, reliable and secure source of energy
we have in the United States. Can you talk a little bit about
that? Because you do mention, you know the dry feed injection
process and efforts to really keep down the use of water in the
carbon sequestration.
Mr. Bolze. That's correct. There is a lot of technology on
today for advanced uses of coal as a power source and doing it
with in mind with water consumption in mind. One of the things
we had mentioned earlier was as in the State of Wyoming we have
a relationship with the University of Wyoming to develop
advanced coal gasification.
This is for the use of what are called lower rank coals. So
many of the western states, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Utah,
South and North Dakota have these coals and as we can utilize
advanced technologies we can use that for power generation. We
can do it in a way that has much less water consumption than
existing coal plants.
That technology still needs to be, you know, further
developed. We are building one of those plants today with
eastern coals. But it's one that's getting a lot of attention.
I think back to the purpose of one of things we're going
through here is as our customers look at those investments. You
have to look at both the energy as well as the water
consumption issues associated with that investment.
Senator Barrasso. From the standpoint of lower rank coal
you're talking about the number of British thermal units, the
BTUs.
Mr. Bolze. That's correct.
Senator Barrasso. It's under 9,000 or 8,500.
Mr. Bolze. That is correct. That plays into how our
customers look at the cost of generating power because how much
BTU can you get out of that specific coal resource.
Senator Barrasso. Then though the Wyoming call it, the
areas you described are also low sulfur coal.
Mr. Bolze. That has to play a factor as part of the
decision also. Correct.
Senator Barrasso. Ok, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bolze. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen, you just arrived. You
haven't had a chance to ask questions. Did you want to go ahead
or do you want us to see if there are other questions here
before you----
Senator Shaheen. Why don't you do that?
The Chairman. Ok. Let me just ask one other question that
I'm confused on. I think one of you, maybe it was you, Mr.
Bauer, talked about an increase in the price of electricity
results in an increase in the price of water. I believe that
was the testimony.
I'm just not exactly clear how that cause and effect works.
Could you just elaborate on that?
Mr. Bauer. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
Recognizing that water is very energy dependent as we've all
spoken to this morning, and largely electricity dependent, as
you raise the price of electricity the cost of electricity to
move the water, treat the water, handle the water goes up.
So there's a substantial component of water cost, a
doubling, for example. The doubling of the price of electricity
would probably raise the price of water by about 25 to 40
percent depending on how far the water had to be transferred,
as we spoke about earlier in the panel. So it's just a simple
connection of the----
The Chairman. So it's the use of the energy, the
electricity----
Mr. Bauer. Right.
The Chairman [continuing]. To move the water and utilize
the water that drives up the price of the water.
Mr. Bauer. Yes, sir. It's not, at least not initially a
direct relationship to how much water is being utilized by the
generation of electricity. It's purely the price of electricity
that's caused by whatever raises the price, whether it's
different kinds of technology, whether it's greenhouse gas
influence in the price of producing electricity.
Those will all also have a substantial impact on water. Yet
we need the energy to have the water. So it was just to make
that point of another form of interconnection that we have to
realize as we think about these things.
The Chairman. Ok. Do all of you agree with that
interconnection?
Mr. Gleick. Yes. In my testimony I mentioned that the
British Water Company, Thames Water recently calculated that
that 17 percent or 20 percent of their operating costs are
energy costs. As the price of energy goes up their operating
costs go up. That in turn forces them to raise the price of
water to their customers, exact same relationship.
The Chairman. Ok. Yes, Dr. House.
Mr. House. This actually plays into the looking at new
water sources too. Because one of the reasons that desalination
is so expensive is because it uses huge amounts of electricity.
So when a water agency is looking at what their sources of
water are now, at least in California, they're also determining
what the energy input to those various sources of water are to
determine what, not only embedded energy they have coming out.
But determine how sensitive they are to changes in the price of
energy.
Mr. Gleick. If I might add to that. There's a National
Academy of Science study that just came out a year ago on
desalination. They made a number of observations, but two in
particular.
The energy required to desalinate has been going down as
the technology is improved. That has driven the cost of
desalination down. But in recent years the cost of desalination
seems to be curving upward again.
In part because the cost of energy is going up because it
takes so much energy to desalinate a gallon of water it's very
sensitive to how much we pay for energy. If the costs of
energy, in the long run, is going to go up, that's going to
keep the cost of desalination very high.
The Chairman. I remember reading about a year or two ago
about a project. I think in Perth, Australia where they I
gather have a wind farm that produces the energy that they need
to run a large desal plant. Provide a lot of the water that the
city uses from that. Any of you give us more detail on that?
Mr. Gleick. Yes. The Perth Desalination Plant is one of the
largest in the world. It's relatively new.
Because the Australians are particularly sensitive to
greenhouse gas emissions in that region they made a commitment
to build wind turbines to power, not necessarily all, but a
very large fraction of the energy to provide the energy for
that desalination plant. I think they built 80 megawatts of
wind turbines that provides a substantial amount of the energy
required for that plant. We could do the same thing.
We've recommended in California in fact that if they want
to consider encouraging desalination that they do it in a way
that doesn't increase greenhouse gas emissions because
California has a very strict policy to try and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. That they encourage the construction
of renewables in order to power those sorts of water
facilities.
The Chairman. Dr. House.
Mr. House. I would just second that one of the main
regulatory agencies in California that deals with desalination
is the Coastal Commission. They just approved a big
desalination facility down in the southern part of the State.
But just as Peter was saying they are required to be carbon
neutral. So they were required in order to get approval for
desalination to mitigate all of their carbon emissions through
offsets and purchases of renewable power.
Mr. Bolze. Just Senator, one thing I wanted to add to your
question. You brought up the Perth plan. Australia as a whole
though is experiencing water scarcity issues as many of you all
know similar to parts of the United States
They're at 8 percent reuse today. They have set a target
for 30 percent reuse by the year 2015. Again they're addressing
it through a number of policies. One of which are State by
State level incentives. Some of which are grants. That's not
all of it.
But they've set that as a priority. The Perth project that
was discussed was part of it. One of the things as we look
through this, we talked about there's different numbers, but
the approximate 6 percent reuse in the United States.
As we talk to our customers, as we look through that, our
view is that given a large majority of that water is used for
once through cooling, is you can get to numbers that are
anywhere between 20 to above 50 percent, less water usage for
energy production just through some of these new technology
applications.
The Chairman. That's on a typical coal plant you're talking
about or----
Mr. Bolze. No, that's an aggregate because again when we
talk about the water usage a lot of it is mentioned by a number
of the panelists has to do with the ones through cooling. So as
you get associated with policies and incentives for water reuse
technology, you can capture that water for reuse and then less
overall water usage.
The Chairman. Ok. Senator Murkowski, did you have
additional questions?
Senator Murkowski. Yes. I do, Mr. Chairman. In this
morning's news, I don't even know where this came out of. It's
an article from Denver, Shell had requested water rights from
the Yampa River in Northwest Colorado for use in oil shale
production.
Not an unusual story in and of itself but as you go through
there's a comment here that it's anticipated that it could take
a year for the water court to review Shell's application
letters ofopposition and all that goes with that. But it caused
me to wonder as I was reading that. You mentioned the water
census and just an understanding of what it is that we have in
terms of that resource.
You have these water courts that are looking at water flow
and water rights as negotiated under compacts. But when they're
doing that they're not really looking at the big energy picture
in terms of the impacts that we may have on our use. I'm just
wondering if this process that we currently have for litigation
of water rights and who gets what whether there's any
consideration given to what we're trying to do with movement
toward renewable energy resources.
You're all kind of smiling in a way that makes me think
that the question is really either weird or there's an issue
out there. Dr. Gleick?
Mr. Gleick. Not only is it not a weird question--I'll tell
you why I'm smiling. I'm smiling because it's a key question.
The whole question of water rights, especially in the Western
United States is central to a lot of the debates we've been
having for a hundred years about water and now energy policy.
In Colorado, the fact that they're even considering
granting more water rights on a system that, as Senator Udall
knows is enormously stressed already by the water rights we've
given out, which probably in the long run exceed the water
that's available is part of the difficulty that we're having.
In Australia they had a terrible drought. One of the things
they've done is they've revamped their water rights system.
Something that some of us might wish we could do in the United
States, but aren't holding our breath for.
So you're asking the right question.
Senator Murkowski. But this goes back to my question in the
first round is there what needs to be done from the Federal
policy. It sounds to me like we don't have much of a connection
between our energy policy and our water policy in this country.
Is that correct?
Mr. Gleick. Yes and this bill helps address that in part by
requiring really for the first time that we start to integrate
the thinking. That we think about energy and water together
when we think about water and energy together. Part of it is
understanding the connections. Then part of it is ultimately
developing the kinds of policies that either are in the bill or
that some of us have recommended to then change national policy
to save both water and energy together.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you one final question, Dr.
Gleick. I understand that you have spent considerable time just
looking at the relationship of water and war in the Middle
East. Can you give us any lessons here in national security of
course as it relates to energy is absolutely key?
How does water fit into the national security issue itself
and what have you learned over there that we can take home
here? You've got a minute, 20 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gleick. I appreciate the question. It's another good
one. It's worthy of a hearing of its own.
There's a very strong connection between water and
conflict, a very long history going back 5,000 years. For
students of history we have on one of our websites a
chronology, the Water Conflict Chronology, that describes
examples throughout history of conflicts over water. The short
answer is I actually think we're more likely to see conflicts
over water issues than over oil in the long run, although
obviously there are political tensions over both.
I think there's solution to both. I think there are ways of
reducing conflicts over energy crossing borders and water
crossing borders. But it requires more than a minute answer.
Senator Murkowski. We'll come back to you in another
hearing. Dr. Webber.
Mr. Webber. Yes, I want to make a positive following
comment. Water scarcity can be a source of war but water
availability can be a source of peace. There's the other way.
We can use our technology and our prowess as a Nation to
improve our foreign policy and use this instrument of foreign
policy to help bring clean water and clean energy to different
parts of the world.
So there's the positive side to this as well. There's
definitely the conflict side.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I remember meeting with the
Eastern Canadian Premier which the New England Governors do on
a regular basis. How surprised they were that we in New England
weren't thinking about what our water issues were going to be
in the future.
Clearly we need to start thinking about that now. But I
want to ask you about the coal technology and the carbon
capture technology. Given the amount of water that that's going
to take--and the fact that at least to date much of the storage
has been in places where there are certain fault lines that
allow us to store the carbon, do you have any analysis or
wisdom about what we ought to be thinking about as we're trying
to make the two of those match?
Because I guess as I look at the geography of the country
it seems like many of the places where we can do the storage
are not going to be places where they have a lot of water. So
is that a false notion? What should we be thinking about as
we're looking at trying to expand and deal with those coal
technologies?
Mr. Bauer. Many of the places that have potential for
carbon long term storage, CO2 long term storage at
deep levels in saline formations, saline aquifers, do have
water there on the surface where the water might be utilized
for cooling. Some areas are well equipped. The Ohio Valley for
example, and other portions of the internal portion of the
country. In New England there's not a lot of opportunity for
carbon storage, except perhaps offshore until you get to
Western New York.
So it varies. So the question is do you have the water on
the surface to use for thermal power generation where thermal
power generation exists. Are there places to put the
CO2?
The answer is it geographically depends. I'm not trying to
be foolish about that. But it does. You're very right about
that.
One of our projects through the regional partnerships is
looking in the Southeast for substantial storage in saline
aquifers. That project looks at the fact that if we put
CO2 in there we should see some increase in pressure
in the aquifer. They're actually bringing the saline water up
and desalinating as a further source of drinking water.
You have the issue of--and going back to Dr. Webber's
earlier statement about EOR and making sure you're respecting
water and properly putting the CO2 away so there is
no harm to any forms of drinking water or future drinking
water. That is a question, do you use the saline reservoir as a
future drinking water source? In this case it would be
definitely, it's even being planned to be a future water source
with greatest impressions with substantial quantity of
CO2 which will further help the pump to bring the
water to the surface over 8,000 feet. Then you would desalinate
up there.
Now that does have an energy penalty. So many of these
things, I think, come back to the technological breakthroughs
we can make to accomplish the water source, this even goes to
the issue on war and conflict. Part of the challenge in China
and India is good drinking water.
That takes energy. If you have people who don't even have
an electric light bulb in their house you don't have a lot of
energy for good drinking water. So you have very poor quality
water.
So if we can take technologies that address multiple issues
that can help to conserve both energy and water and make it
available.
Mr. Bolze. Senator, just a couple additional points I'd
like to point on. It's very much location dependent as you
would imagine. Many people are studying where those aquifers
are to store the carbon and where the location is verses where
the power is needed as well as where the water needs are.
We have a partnership with a company called Schlumberger
that kind of looks through how you map that out. There are
other people that are looking at that also. But I think the
other side of it too is when you get into the costs of--as our
customers look at a coal plant or other ways with carbon
sequestration is not only is it the water consumption, but it's
also the percent carbon capture.
There's a big issue between let's say equivalency to an
existing coal plant or to a natural gas combined cycle plant or
to a zero emissions plant. The huge cost differences as you
step up that curve as well as water consumption. So I think
there are a number of aspects we have to look at. It's not an
easy question. But it is the right question to look at.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. We have an energy
source in this country that is going unused. As some people
have described it as equivalent of Saudi Arabia and that's
probably an overstatement and that is the power that is
generated at night, that goes unused today a power plants does
not shut down.
Dr. Webber in your very excellent piece for Scientific
American, you talk about the amount of water involved in a plug
in electric hybrid. But if the plug in electric hybrid is
charged at night off power that is lost anyway because it's not
used that changes the equation. I'm assuming that you wrote
this as if it were charged during the daytime because our
meters charge so much per kilowatt hour regardless of when we
do it.
Utilities are trying to find ways with SMART meters to get
people to use the washing machines and so on at other times and
change the economic incentive for when you use your facilities.
Now as I have listened to this panel I think there are a lot of
uses of energy tied to water that are not time sensitive. I
wonder if anybody has done any kind of thinking about or
studies on the question of what lowering the cost of getting
the kind of water we need if it could be all tied to those
periods of time when the power generation is basically going to
waste?
You run a nuclear plant 24 hours a day. You have to. Then
at night the electricity is not being used because the plants
are shut down and people are asleep and so on.
Is there any kind of data? Are there any kind of data on
this? Are there any kind of incentives, Dr. House, in
California to try to move in the direction, not just of getting
people to use their washing machine at night, but to take
advantage of this significant power source which we already pay
for and don't use? So?
Mr. Webber. I think the plug in hybrid point is very
important. The numbers I used for the article are national
averages. The type of electricity used for plug in hybrids
determines how water intensive or carbon intensive your
electricity is. That varies a lot all over the Nation.
Some parts of the Nation use a lot of coal. Some use a lot
of nuclear. Some use a lot of wind. So the profile for your
plug in hybrid will vary, will be very different in Cleveland
than Austin than Seattle.
Generally plug in hybrids are very appealing for a lot of
reasons. Generally there is an environmental ease of scrubbing
the emissions from 1,500 power plants as opposed to 100 million
tailpipes. So there's an environmental advantage to plug in
hybrids.
You can use this excess power at night. Not all parts of
the Nation have excess power. In Texas we turn our power up and
down to match the load. In some parts of the Nation they make
excess and throw it away.
The appeal of plug in hybrids partly is also that wind
tends to be more available at night, at least continentally in
the Nation. So plug in hybrids match well with wind which is
great. So there is some time sensitivity.
Senator Bennett. I worry about wind on the grid because the
wind doesn't always blow. If it suddenly stops you----
Mr. Webber. Yes, the wind doesn't always blow. It is
variable. You usually know about 30 hours in advance if it's
going to turn off. What we're finding in Texas sometimes the
gas turbines don't always spin either.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Mr. Webber. So we have all sorts of availability problems.
Sometimes the wind doesn't blow then the gas turbines shut off
and then you have a blackout. So there's a time sensitivity of
when energy is available that matches available plug in
hybrids.
For example it matches well with water. The way we tend to
do water markets is that price for water is the same every
minute of the day, every day of the year, every year of the
decade even if water is not available. So we could have
smarter, more time sensitive prices that reflect supply and
demand.
Particularly we see increased water demand in the summer
for irrigation.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Mr. Webber. The prices don't reflect that. So there are
time sensitivity issues. Also the variability of some of these
renewable sources, like wind and solar match well with water
because we don't need water to be continuously treated all the
time. We can sort of store it up.
Senator Bennett. Right.
Mr. Webber. So wind and solar match really well with water
treatment, desalination, like we heard about in Perth,
Australia for example.
Mr. House. The water systems are very well situated to do
this demand response. In California in my testimony I talk
about how the water agencies in California dropped 400
megawatts every summer afternoon because when you build a water
system what you want to do is you want your water treatment
facility to be working pretty much around the clock. But you
have these bimodal peaks in your water supply.
So what all the water systems do is they have some place to
store this water. What we're doing in California to a large
extent is that you're using the water out of storage during the
summer on peak period. One of the frustrations has been that
there is a lot more that we could do.
But there aren't really incentives that were set up for--
the water systems were built with the storage for water supply.
They weren't really built with the storage for energy use. It
is difficult, particularly due to the sort of the WIP saw that
occurs with rate that the water agencies say, I'm not going to
build another storage facility because I'm not sure that I'll
be able to amortize this over a long enough period of time.
Senator Bennett. I see.
Mr. House. But if you could get some sort of stability
there's another probably 600 megawatts of on peak curtailment
that could be done in the State of California from existing
sites if there was an incentive that was permanent enough that
the water systems would say it would build additional storage
and reduce their on peak electrical.
Senator Bennett. I have a source. The Chairman has heard me
on this. It's my hobby horse, tidal power.
I've been in Lagrange, France where they have a tidal
system. Unlike wind you know to the second when the tide is not
going to be rising or falling. They built that system 40 years
ago.
It is so reliable when I took the tour of it they said we
have nobody here at night and on weekends. It just operates.
They know exactly when it is. They know exactly how much power
it's going to generate in what periods of time.
I think that tides rising and falling in the Gulf of
California which is very close to the California grid is
something that California really ought to look at in
cooperation with Mexico because it could provide you with the
kind of thing that Australia is talking about the tremendous
amount of power that is going to be there as long as the moon
revolves around the Earth. If the moon ever stops we're going
to have bigger problems than water, available to do exactly the
kind of thing you're talking about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a
fascinating hearing. We see over and over again the nexus
between water use and energy use, technology, national
security. It's fascinating.
I note that my good friend from Utah, Senator Bennett comes
from a pioneer family. He himself has been a pioneer in
promoting hybrid vehicle technologies. In fact I'm not going to
get myself in trouble outing him, but he drove one of the most
interestingly designed cars that Honda first produced, the
Insight. But I note his passion about this opportunity and the
way it does link to water supplies.
When he talked about this unused resource I did think
perhaps Senator Bennett would talk about oil shale which is
there are enormous oil shale beds in our three states. Senator
Barrasso has left, but Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. The story
that Senator Murkowski just referenced in the Denver paper
yesterday.
I'm still a fan of newspapers by the way. You can't hold up
a Blackberry with a headline. But the headline yesterday from
the New York Post says, Water Plan Hits Wall of Foes.
For the record I just wanted to note that the objections
that were filed to Shell's plan included the Steamboat Springs
water court which is where the objection was filed. It came
from a coal company, a power company, an agricultural ditch
company and Cross Mountain Ranch which is a hunting resort. I
think Senator Bennett knows of that particular ranch.
So this points out the challenges that we face in the West
that Dr. Gleick is so well aware of and I think so many of you
on the panel. I did want to note for the record before that I
mentioned John Wesley Powell. People may have thought why am I
mentioning this obscure Civil War Major, but he was the first
head of the United States Geological Survey. The survey has led
much of the understanding of the geography, topography, water
resources in the West.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Chairman, if I could just quickly.
Senator Udall. Please.
Senator Bennett. Where I come from there is an old adage.
You referred to the pioneers. It's better to be ahead of the
ditch than ahead of the church.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. Indicating how important water really is.
Senator Udall. I'm going to borrow that. Add to the
repertoire that we have about water and the water fights in the
West. Dr. House, you talked and I think many of the panel have
talked about desal. The Chairman has as well.
Would you comment on the brine in the salt byproduct and
the challenges we face in disposing of it if we pursue a more
broad based and aggressive desalination policy. Is it a problem
on a large scale?
Mr. House. I think it depends on what you mean by large
scale. Most of the facilities, at least in California, one of
the things that was particularly happening. The sun in
California is going because we're chronically short of water
and we're using the, they're called de-salters, but they're
using brinish water.
This is in as opposed to the ones on the coast that
actually uses salt water. At least it's been my experience that
they don't really have that much of an issue with that it comes
out generally in a solid form. They can take it in a solid
form. They use a land disposal for it.
I know that there's been some discussions about disposing
of it in the oceans. There's some questions that some of the
environmental groups have raised of, oh well, is it going to
increase the salinity in a particular area. The whole Pacific
Ocean it's probably not. But if you've got one particular bay
or something it may.
But that has not been one of the issues that has been very
much discussed at all. So it appears that they, at least for
right now. Remember these are fairly localized plants and there
isn't a huge, huge amount of it.
If you had the 30 desal facilities that are being proposed
for California coast it may become more of an issue. But it's a
local issue. They use land disposal of it.
Senator Udall. Other theories? Dr. Gleick.
Mr. Gleick. If I might just add to that. It is a potential
problem, the disposal of brine from desal. But it's a solvable
problem with money.
If you're building a desalination plant on the coast you're
dumping the brine in the ocean. It's possible to dispose of
brine in the ocean in a very responsible manner that diffuses
back to normal ocean salinity very quickly. In fact in Perth,
Australia in the desalination plant they built dispersal of
brine system that's very effective and I think very
environmentally benign. But it costs more money to do it that
way.
Brine disposal inland for de salting brackish water is more
of a problem because you don't have the ocean to diffuse it
into. You have to dispose of it either by evaporating off the
rest of the water and producing a solid or one of the things
they've done in El Paso where they've just built a desalination
plant for brackish water is they're pumping it down, sort of
like carbon sequestration, deep probably 2,000 feet into a
saline aquifer to get rid of it. It stays down there. That's a
safe way to dispose of the brine.
But again, it's just more expensive. It's another way to
simply say doing desalination right costs a little more money
than doing it wrong.
Senator Udall. As I understand it some of the CSPs,
concentrated solar powered technologies use the salt that holds
the thermal product of the sun's efforts. I imagine though
there's a lot more salt that we produce through de-salt
technologies that you could use in that technology. Then maybe
about the kind of salt that's used for----
Mr. Gleick. Yes, but those are also typically closed
systems.
Senator Udall. Yes.
Mr. Gleick. Where the salt just cycles. You heat it up and
then you cool it down. So that's a great question whether first
of all, it's the same kind of salt. Then second of all if you
built enough solar thermal plants whether you could use the
salt from brackish water desalination plants.
Senator Udall. In the end it's a different salt.
Mr. Gleick. It's a different salt.
Senator Udall. Ok. It was worth a try. I know in the end
technology that's best imitates Mother Nature. There's an
increasing interest in what's called industrial ecology.
The Scandinavians have been pioneers in this regard. We
are, in our own way, when you develop technology. But again
technology is best that imitates Mother Nature. It recycles,
hopefully on a shorter timeframe some of the products and
byproducts of all of our uses as a modern society.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Shaheen, did you have
additional questions?
Senator Shaheen. No but I wanted to pick up on Dr. Webber's
point about water being a potential for peace as well as war
because we have an inventor, an entrepreneur in New Hampshire
named Dean Cayman, who has developed a facility about the size
of that desk over there which can clean water either from the
ocean or from any other place. The point that he always makes
is, you know, the cost of cleaning that water would be less
than the cost of one missile. So I think it's a really
important point to follow up on and to thank.
We ought to be structuring some of our policies in that
direction. Thank you for raising it, Dr. Webber.
The Chairman. Thank you all very much. I think it's been
very useful testimony. We'll try to proceed with this
legislation and maybe find some more ways to improve it based
on your suggestions. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

[The following statements were received for the record.]
American Rivers,
Washington, DC, March 20, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski: On behalf of
American Rivers' 65,000 members and supporters across the nation, thank
you for your leadership in addressing the important relationship
between water and energy in S. 531, the Energy and Water Integration
Act of 2009. American Rivers strongly supports this legislation and
appreciates the committee holding a hearing on the bill on March 10.
Water and energy are two of the fundamental building blocks of our
society. Both are intricately connected with the health of our
environment and our economy. The information that will be gathered as a
result of the studies in this bill will help lead to the development of
policies that will encourage the most efficient and responsible use of
our valuable natural resources.
As the Energy and Natural Resources Committee moves forward with
this legislation, we ask you to keep in mind that water and energy are
both fundamentally local resources. Recent water supply crises in the
Southeast and elsewhere tell us that these issues are moving to the
forefront in all parts of the country. We believe that the studies
called for in your bill will ultimately prove most useful if they
consider regional differences alongside the general issues.
While the studies in S. 531 are valuable, we urge Congress to also
take action to reduce our water and energy demands. First, by directing
federal agencies to improve the management of forests and watersheds on
public land, we can lower the cost--in both dollars and kilowatts--of
securing reliable supplies of fresh water. Forests are our nation's
best and least expensive water infrastructure, providing natural
filtration and storage for two-thirds of the nation's water supply.
Thank you again for recognizing the interdependent relationship
between water and energy. We look forward to working with you and your
staff on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Rebecca R. Wodder,
President.
______

Statement of Peter Williams, Ph.D., Chief Technology Officer, ``Big
Green Innovations'', IBM
introduction
The energy-water nexus poses critical issues for the USA, from the
perspectives of energy security, competition for water resources and
respect for the environment. The Energy and Natural Resources
Committee's consideration of the matter is therefore extremely timely.
IBM is pleased to submit this testimony both on the energy-water issue
generally and more specifically on the draft bill now under
consideration that is intended to integrate decision-making on energy
and water.
IBM believes strongly in making our planet and its infrastructure
``smarter''--providing more instrumentation, control systems, enhanced
communications, data management, and analytic and visualization
capabilities, to create systems that can adapt and respond as human and
planetary needs change. This perspective has underlain our work on
energy management and so-called ``smart grid'', as recently
represented, for example, by the testimony of IBM's Allan Schurr to the
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming\1\. It has
also informed our work in the water management area to create large-
scale ``Smart Water'' solutions for the management of entire water
resources (rivers, watersheds, aquifers) and water infrastructures,
often using software and know-how derived originally from our smart
grid work. Our experience has led us to the conclusion that water and
energy issues are inextricably linked and that they need to be managed
as such. They both require the application of ``smarter planet''
technologies referenced above to enable effective understanding of
trends and issues, and thus to enable informed and effective decision-
making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Testimony of Allan Schurr, Vice President of Strategy and
Development, IBM Global Energy and Utilities, before the Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Hearing on ``Get
Smart on the Smart Grid: How Technology Can Revolutionize Efficiency
and Renewable Solutions'', February 25, 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments that follow focus primarily on the relationship
between water and electricity generation. We have not focused on the
use of water in creating transportation fuels (for example, the water
requirements of fermentation-based methods for making bio-fuels), as
these are not directly within our area of expertise.
water and electricity
It is not the intention of this testimony to repeat the factual
knowledge already available to the Committee, but some key points will
serve to set the scene. First, electricity generation is dependent upon
copious water availability, and is at risk when water resources fail:

Thermo-electric power generation, the backbone of America's
current energy supply, accounts for some 40% of all freshwater
withdrawals in the United States, roughly equivalent to water
withdrawals for agricultural irrigation\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Energy Demands on Water Resources--Report to Congress on the
Interdependency of Energy and Water'', US Department of Energy,
December 2006, page 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal generation is highly susceptible to water shortages.
In the summer of 2006, the Tennessee Valley Authority had
briefly to shut down its plant at Browns Ferry, Alabama, while
other plants (such as the Harris and McGuire plants in South
Carolina) came close to this. Plants in Spain and France were
also either shut down for up to a week in 2006, or operated on
reduced output\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These examples all relate to nuclear plants, which may be
particularly susceptible to water shortages because of the very high
volumes of water they use. The issue applies to all thermal generation
however.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydropower generation is vulnerable to fluctuating water
levels, for example in 2001 when electricity output from the
Columbia River basin was cut to the point where activities such
as aluminum smelting were also curtailed.

Second, water movement and treatment requires large amounts of
energy:

Water movement and treatment in the US consumes some 100
million MW hours per year--this is approximately 3-4% of all
electricity generated nationwide. Of this, some 95% is used for
pumping\4\ \5\, and the balance used for water treatment. In
places energy needs are much higher--in California, for
example, due to the impact of that state's climate and
geography some 19% of its electricity is used to move or treat
water.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPRI statistics quoted in ``Greenhouse Gas Reduction as an
Additional Benefit of Optimal Pump Scheduling for Water Utilities'', S
Bunn, 2007, page 4
\5\ ``Energy Demands on Water Resources'', op cit, page 25
\6\ ``California's Water Energy Relationship'', California Energy
Commission, November 2005, page 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desalination of water, now being looked at as an
increasingly viable response to water shortages, is highly
energy intensive--taking from 9.8 to 16.5 KWh per thousand
gallons of fresh water produced from seawater and 3.9-9.8 KWh
per thousand gallons from brackish water, depending on the type
of process\7\. (To put that in perspective, the average
household water use for a family of 4 is about 280 gallons per
day\8\, and the average electricity consumption per household
is 29 KWh per day\9\. It can be seen that desalination will
represent a non-trivial increase in energy needs.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``California's Water Energy Relationship, op cit, page 36
\8\ http://www.drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Default.aspx?tabid=85
(website produced by American Waterworks association)
\9\ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us_tab1.html, data
from 2001(website produced by Energy efficiency Administration)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, demands on water availability from energy production are set
to intensify, just at the time when water resources themselves are
coming under stress

The Energy Information Administration has projected that,
absent significant energy conservation, energy demand will
increase by 50% over the 25 years from 2006\10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Quoted in ``Energy Demands on Water Resources'', op cit, page
10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some renewable energy supplies, for example utility scale
solar thermal, also need water supplies for their operations.
Their targeted location in the arid Southwest US is problematic
for water availability.
Some regions have seen groundwater levels fall between 300
and 900 feet over the past 50 years as withdrawals have
exceeded natural recharge rates\11\ (with corresponding
increases in pumping energy requirements as water needs to be
lifted through ever greater heights).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Energy Demands on Water Resources'', op cit, page 33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The growing interest in recycling water will probably
require more energy-intensive reverse osmosis filtration and
other types of water treatment, which will probably increase
the energy needs of water management.
While surface water withdrawals have remained relatively
constant over the last 20 years at around 260 billion gallons
per day, pressures to maintain stream flows for fisheries have
created severe contention for available water\12\ (for example
the Klamath, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Rivers in California),
while climate change is imposing considerable uncertainties
about future water availability patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Energy Demands on Water Resources'', op cit, page 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While many thermo-electric plants return much of the water
they use, it is frequently warmer than when it was extracted,
which has sometimes severe impacts on local river ecosystems.
Intake pumps may also kill large numbers of fish, as was
recently declared for example at Indian Point nuclear power
station near New York\13\--cooling system amendments are
expected cost of the order of $1.6bn. It is also well
documented that dams for hydro-power can damage fish
populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ruling of New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, reported on August 26th 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting these facts together, the picture is, frankly, alarming.
Electricity generation uses large amounts of water; moving water uses
large amounts of energy; and demands for both energy and water are set
to increase beyond the capacity of current water resources, and of the
environment, to support them. The proposed Energy and Water Integration
Act 2009 is therefore both relevant and timely.
1managing energy and water: lessons from ibm's water and energy
management activities
This section sets out two examples from IBM's clients and our own
operations, that offer lessons for managing the energy-water nexus.
Example 1: Island of Malta
The Mediterranean island nation of Malta (population 400,000)
depends on imported fossil fuel for its entire energy supply, while the
country depends on electrically powered desalination for over half its
water supply. Rising sea levels threaten its sub-surface water
resources. IBM is working with EneMalta and the Water Services
Corporation to enable the country to become the first in the world to
build a nationwide smart grid and fully integrated electricity and
water management system. The system will contain 250,000 interactive
energy and water meters and thousands of sensors on both the energy
grid and the water infrastructure to enable proactive management that
anticipates problems, and optimizes water and energy supply together.
The system will also provide Maltese citizens with better information
on their water and energy consumption, enabling them to make better
decisions about the resources they use.
While Malta is a far smaller, more concentrated and more homogenous
country than the USA, its overall problem will become increasingly
familiar to certain communities in the US over time. There are
accordingly a number of lessons from this work that the Committee may
care to note. First, there is the notion that water and electricity
generation should be managed increasingly as a single integrated
system, given their interdependencies, based in Malta's case on active
collaboration between the agencies concerned. In the US that would
translate to collaboration on an area by area basis, but the principle
would still stand. For example:

Water agencies would work to minimize their energy
consumption. This would almost certainly require new levels of
collaboration between agencies, given the high levels of
fragmentation that exist in the US water industry today.
Energy generators would continue to work with water agencies
to coordinate their intake and outfall requirements with other
demands on the water resource in question. For example, both
could work to integrate the data and models they use for
decision-making, to ensure decisions that they complement one
another.
Both would work together to promote joint conservation goals
and to establish in the minds of the public, business and
agriculture an understanding that ``water conservation is
energy conservation, and energy conservation is water
conservation''. Combined metering programs like Malta's would
be a good way to do that (as well as, potentially, a way to
share infrastructure and data, while reducing both costs and
inconvenience to homeowners and businesses).

Second, the work in Malta will enable consumption information to be
collected in much greater frequency and on a much finer spatial mesh,
and distributed to a much wider selection of stakeholders than
hitherto. This greater ``granularity'' of information is the key to
effectively identifying consumption trends and issues, identifying
resource losses and infrastructure malfunctions, and so enabling the
effective co-management of the water and energy infrastructures on the
island. The same applies here in the US:

Consistent adoption of advanced meter infrastructures for
energy and water throughout the US would increase the
granularity of usage information, and provide a platform with
which to understand and then influence demand levels (by
increasing consumer visibility into use patterns and by
enabling time differentiated pricing). It would also, in many
cases, reduce costs and increase water and energy agency
revenue by cutting down on losses, and because the newer meters
tend to be more accurate.
The same principle applies to our understanding of the
impact of energy generation on surface and groundwater
resources--more gauges, sensors and meters equate to better
understanding of the interactions, and thus better decisions,
especially if they are integrated to form a single sensing
infrastructure for each water resource. In practice, sensors
from various agencies operating on the same water resource
report separately--there is little integration; and the number
of flow gages in the US is currently decreasing, not
increasing\14\. If anything, therefore, the country is moving
in the opposite direction to that needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For example, as reported to the Advisory Committee on Water
Information, at its meeting of 2/10/09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 2: Energy ``Harvesting'' in IBM's Semiconductor Plants
IBM manufactures semiconductors, which means that we use relatively
large amounts of energy and water in each of our fabrication plants.
The two are linked, because much of the water we use is ultra-pure
(10,000 times purer than drinking water), having been treated by
reverse osmosis filtration. This is very energy intensive (it is also
the primary means of desalinating seawater and is the reason why that
process is also very energy intensive).
We have, however, become very effective at managing our water and
energy consumption downwards. Taking our Burlington, VT plant as an
example, between 2001 and 2007, we reduced our energy consumption from
520 million to 450 million KWh per year--the savings are enough to
power about 2,500 homes. Similarly in the same period we reduced our
water usage from 4.5 million gallons of water per day to 3.5 million.
These results were achieved despite the fact that product output
volumes in the plant increased by 33% over the period in question.
While industrial water usage is only 5% of the US total\15\, the
methods we used to achieve these reductions are instructive in the
context of the Committee's present interests. First, we systematically
set out to harvest energy from the pressure and or temperature in water
as it is used in the plant. For example, we systematically harvest
temperature in water, via heat exchangers, for cooling purposes, while
also recycling water as we do so. Over time this has allowed us to
reduce energy and water consumption in tandem. We also use pressure
from the public supply to provide at least some of the pressure needed
for our water filters. Formerly, water came in from our supplier and
was piped to a holding tank--all the pressure in the water was thereby
lost, meaning that it had to be (expensively, and energy-intensively)
re-pressurized to force it through the filter membranes. By working
with the supplier to create a direct linkage from the water main to the
filters, we saved significant amounts of energy and cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Energy Demands on Water Resources'', op cit, page 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is relevant to energy and water management in the USA as a
whole, because large amounts of kinetic energy exist in the pipes and
water-mains of the nation's water systems. For example, wherever
pressure reduction valves are used today in water mains, it may be
possible to replace these with reaction turbines that generate energy
as they reduce the flow to the required pressure. The amounts of energy
generated, especially in large, high pressure water mains, are not
trivial--as long ago as 1998 2MW systems were operating in Scotland and
Germany, and examples existed of water treatment plants being wholly
self-powered in this way\16\. We have been unable to ascertain how
systematically turbines of this type are deployed in the USA, but we
recommend that this should be investigated. At the very least they may
offer the potential to break or weaken the link between conventional
energy availability and water movement and treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Pumps as Turbines and Induction Motors as Generators for
Energy Recovery in Water Supply Systems'', AA Williams, NPA Smith, C
Bird and M Howard, Water and Environment Journal, Vol 12, Issue 3,
pp175-178, 1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, IBM takes great care to optimize the maintenance and
operation of equipment in the plant, based on the ability to track
energy consumption continuously, machine-by-machine. We do not believe
that most water agencies operate in this way, especially with the
operation of their pumps and valves. As noted above, water pumping uses
about 3% of the nation's electricity output; regular optimization of
pumps, valves and pumping schedules supported via commercially
available software has demonstrated energy savings of 6-11% in 4 US
water agencies (in some cases where extensive effort had already been
expended on pump management), plus significant demand shifting from
peak to off-peak electricity generation periods. If replicated
nationally, the energy saving would be between 3 and 5.5 million MWh
per year\17\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Bunn, op cit, page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still on the subject of maintenance and optimization, an EU report
estimated that in clean water, pump performance degrades by 1% per year
(and faster in wastewater)--but that most water agencies, in Europe at
least, do little to manage this. Reconditioning pumps, by polishing
interior surfaces to remove roughness caused by degradation, was
estimated to improve pump efficiency by 5-18%; matching pump wear and
status to duty cycles can increase that figure to 10-20%\18\. Combining
this with the figures in the previous paragraph suggests that, in
principle, perhaps a quarter to a third of the total national
electricity requirement for water movement could be saved from these
sources alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ European Commission, ``Study on improving the energy
efficiency of pumps'', February 2001, AEAT-6559/ v 5.1, quoted in L
Reynolds and S. Bunn, ``Reducing Energy Demand in Water Supply through
Real-Time Scheduling and Operation''--paper delivered to Aqua Enviro
Conference, Birmingham, England, March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, IBM's own management of water and energy relies on extremely
detailed measurement. As stated, we track energy usage, continuously,
by individual machine. We track water usage via sensors for key water
parameters such as flow, temperature, pressure, organics, metals and
particle content, collecting 400 million packets of data per day from
5000 discrete points. In both cases we undertake regular trending and
correlation analyses, and monitor processes via 80 statistical control
points to ensure that process performance (including water and energy
consumption) remains within the tolerances set.
Again, while there may be specific exceptions, we do not believe
that this level of detailed control is undertaken regularly in water
operations; and while power generation is extensively instrumented, the
general level of analytics is not as advanced as modern software tools
would allow. It may be argued that controlling water and energy
requires operations over a much larger physical area than a single
plant; and that the value proposition for investing in controls of this
type in the semiconductor industry is different than water or energy--
computer chips are relatively more expensive, especially given that
water is not usually priced effectively in the first place. However,
given the growing issues that the nation faces with its energy and
water supplies, and thus their strategic value even if the financial
value is not aligned, we believe that a move towards this type of
control philosophy and technology is warranted.
comments on text of energy and water integration bill
Building on the arguments above, we have a number of comments to
offer on the draft of the Bill. These comments should be taken in the
context of IBM's strong support for the intentions of the Bill and are
intended constructively. We will be happy to help frame specific
provisions, if requested.
water management practices, not just projects
The Bill potentially offers an opportunity to establish sound
energy management practices in the water industry. Section 4 of the
present draft seems to focus on the energy impact of specific
reclamation projects by Federal agencies, to the exclusion of the day-
to-day activities of state and local water agencies--which, we
demonstrated earlier, can consume significant amounts of energy.
We would therefore suggest supplementing the Federal project focus
with a requirement for the National Academy of Sciences, working in
cooperating with the water industry, to assess and confirm the
potential benefit of energy and water management ``best practices'' at
the state and local level such as pump optimization and scheduling;
pump and valve maintenance; and energy harvesting, in particular from
(but not restricted to) the use of turbines to replace flow reduction
valves. There may well be other best practices that could be
identified. The Bill should also call on the NAS to publicize its
results to state and local water agencies, perhaps via the various
water industry associations.
In addition, while Section 6 addresses the issue of information on
water related energy consumption in various sectors of industry, we
suggest that the focus on state and local water agencies should be
sharpened. This could be achieved by promoting energy used per gallon
of water supplied, and each gallon treated, as a key performance metric
for each water agency (making due allowance for the fact that wholesale
and retail supply agencies will have different profiles). Energy
directly generated by an agency from its own renewable sources or from
its own harvesting of water pressure or temperature would be excluded--
the focus here is on energy supplied via the grid. With a common set of
industry metrics, water agencies could then report to the Department of
Energy on their energy usage, just as they report on water quality
today to the EPA; league tables could then be published to encourage
public review and cost improvement programs.
the role of information technology
We have shown above and in other testimony to Congress\19\ how
advanced information technology--metering and sensing, analytics,
visualization--can improve the management of the energy grid, water,
and the connections between them. The proposed Bill does not directly
address the benefits potentially available from IT, and we therefore
suggest supplementing the provisions in Section 7 as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Allan Schurr, op cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bill should task the NAS with reporting to Congress on the
information items required to make effective operational decisions on
energy generation and energy and water usage, where that information
should come from, and the obligations of various tiers of agency to
make sure it is available.
The NAS should also consider the technologies that might be
required to generate the information in question. On this last point,
we would anticipate that the NAS would look, as a minimum, at:

The potential role of advanced meter infrastructures for
water in assisting in the management of water and energy
demand, as well as in providing information to enable improved
operational decision making.
The role of optimization software for integrated energy and
water management in supporting decisions that balance energy
and water needs.
The recommendations for automated sensing of water quality
and flow around energy generation activities, to generate a
``real time'' picture of the impact of those activities.
Information and data standards for using the information
generated.

Focusing directly on water, we would also suggest that the NAS
consider the scope to replicate appropriate smart grid concepts in
water management across the nation. This would cover demand prediction,
blending of water sources, optimal routing and storage strategies,
optimal discharge rates and times, and so on--the point being that
``optimal'' in this context includes energy consumption alongside water
pressure, quality and other more traditional water agency concerns.
conclusion
In summary, in this testimony we have sought to demonstrate the
value of advanced information technology in improving day-to-day
management decision-making on issues of energy and water management
interdependence, and in enabling, in particular, the reduction in
energy consumption by the water industry. We will be pleased to answer
any follow up questions that the Committee may have on the comments we
have made here.
APPENDIX

Responses to Additional Questions

----------

Responses of Peter H. Gleick to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Several of you talked about the opportunity to reduce
energy consumption by reusing or conserving water. Mr. Bolze, your
testimony specifically references that the U.S. presently reclaims and
reuses 6% of its wastewater compared to other countries with much
higher percentages.
Can each of you comment on the magnitude of potential you see for
significant water savings yielding significant energy savings in this
country? Are we just at the tip of the iceberg with respect to the
water & energy savings possible through water conservation efforts? Has
any established entity quantified the potential?
Answer. I know of no one who has quantified the potential for
overall energy savings from improving water use efficiency, nationwide,
but regional and local studies suggest that the savings are both
significantly large, and cost-effective. A study done at the Pacific
Institute offers some specific examples and numbers for the western
United States. This study is available at:

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/energy_and_water/index.htm.

Question 2. As discussed today, one of the hurdles to coordinated
energy and water policy is that energy policy is developed at a
national level and water policies are more local and regional in
nature.
How much of an impediment is that to integrating energy and water
policy and what other impediments do you see to this goal?
Answer. While it is true that there is sometimes a mismatch between
federal and local authority in the water/energy areas, there are
important actions appropriate for the federal government to take. In
particular, effective water efficiency and energy efficiency standards
for appliances (such as those in the 1992 National Energy Policy Act)
need to be updated. In addition, federal agencies such as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation are responsible
for significant local water management and they have both failed, to
date, to integrate energy and water policies in their operations and
management.
Question 3a. You stated in your testimony that the California
Energy Commission recently found that 95% of their desired energy
savings could be achieved for roughly half the cost through water
conservation programs instead.
Do these programs focus on domestic water conservation or do they
have industrial and agricultural components as well?
Answer. The focus of the CEC energy estimates was overall water
conservation and efficiency, but most of their analysis was addressing
urban (residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional) water
use. More effort needs to be put into evaluating savings in the
agricultural sector (pumping and delivery, in particular).
Question 3b. Follow-up: In terms of domestic water conservation,
Dr. House recommended combining EPA's WaterSense program with DOE's
EnergyStar program. What do you think of this, or similar strategies,
which combine water and energy conservation efforts into single
programs?
Answer. I support far better integration of EPA's energy and water
efficiency programs in order to both avoid duplication and to maximize
benefits.
Responses of Peter H. Gleick to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe how the United States can satisfy all
the expected water needs of newly proposed power plants, including
concentrated solar, in arid and semi-arid regions.
Answer. We cannot. Newly proposed power plants are proposed without
considering water constraints. What this means is that some of those
plants will not be built, or conflicts over water are growing. Another
critical solution, however, is to require power plants with significant
water demands to use ``dry cooling'' systems that use little water. I
note that even though there was some discussion at the hearing about
the water-intensity of solar thermal/concentrated solar, actual
proposal for such plants are increasingly looking at ``dry cooling'' to
reduce water demands enormously. Thus not ALL solar thermal uses a lot
of water.
Question 2. Are there any regions in the country that are not
expecting a significant water problem in the next decade?
Answer. All regions will have challenges, though not all regions
with have scarcity. In some places, water problems will be associated
with contamination and water quality, not quantity. The places with
challenges will also be determined by future patterns of population
growth and development, which are hard to forecast.
Question 3. Please describe how policies aimed at climate
mitigation and adaption may affect policies developed in the energy and
water sectors, and, specifically, the energy-water nexus.
Answer. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must take into
account water--such as the water for renewable energy systems
(typically, but not always, less than from traditional power plants).
Question 4. Please describe the impact on energy use with stricter
treatment standards for water and wastewater. Are there any energy
related tradeoffs that may occur with stricter treatment standards?
Answer. There is a good chance that improving water quality
standards and the development of new treatment systems will increase
the energy ``footprint'' of water by moving to more energy intensive
systems. Conversely, smart planning to decentralize new wastewater
systems may lead to a decrease in energy requirements. The point is to
plan in advance for the energy implications in order to avoid these bad
tradeoffs and find the good ones.
Question 5. Please describe the impact of energy policies and
regulations on water demands and its availability.
Answer. The key link, addressed in my written testimony and oral
remarks, is the water demand for power plant cooling.
Question 6. As we further examine the interrelationship between
water and energy, what type of qualitative data do you believe is
needed to better understand the connections to biodiversity and
ecological health?
Question 7. How can we encourage coordination and collaboration of
research, development and policy efforts in the energy-water domain,
with a view to cross-cutting learning?
Answer. Absolutely: I strong urge better integration and
coordination at the federal level among the diverse agencies involved
in energy and water in the U.S.
Question 8. Please describe the linkages between energy and water
consumption, as a society becomes more affluent. How do measures to
improve water use efficiency and energy efficiency correlate, as
societies become more affluent?
Answer. Some argue that as the economy grows, societies inevitably
use more water and energy. This is not inevitable. Total water use in
the United States has leveled off and even declined in the last two
decades, while population and GNP have all risen sharply. Thus we must
NOT assume that water demands and energy demands must rise forever--
indeed, resource, economic, and environmental constraints argue for
improving efficiency and quality of life while minimizing waste and
additional resource use.
Question 9. Please describe how water resource constraints can
become energy constraints.
Answer. As described in my written testimony, limits on water can
limit water available to cool power plants, which can lead to short-or
long-term constraints on energy production. I offer several examples
from the headlines of recent cutbacks in energy because of water
scarcity.
Question 10. Please describe how the California Energy Commission
came to their number that 95% of the energy savings of proposed energy-
efficiency programs could be saved at 58% of the cost through water-
efficiency programs instead. How is California going to rethink the
prioritization of funding energy efficiency projects in light of these
numbers?
Answer. This was work from the CEC and I recommend asking this of
those authors.
Question 11. How do you weigh the ecological impacts of seawater
use for energy production verses inland facilities, that likely use
fresh water?
Answer. No good comparison has been done on this, but two reports
address the ecological costs of desalination--one from the Pacific
Institute; the other from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The
Institute report is available here: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/
desalination/index.htm. The NAS report is available from the National
Academy Press and is called ``Desalination: A National Perspective.''
This report offers explicit and valuable advice on appropriate (and
inappropriate) national research priorities for desalination.
______

Responses of Stephen Bolze to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Several of you talked about the opportunity to reduce
energy consumption by reusing or conserving water. Mr. Bolze, your
testimony specifically references that the U.S. presently reclaims and
reuses 6% of its wastewater compared to other countries with much
higher percentages.
Can each of you comment on the magnitude of potential you see for
significant water savings yielding significant energy savings in this
country? Are we just at the tip of the iceberg with respect to the
water & energy savings possible through water conservation efforts? Has
any established entity quantified the potential?
Answer. Based on what other countries have accomplished--and are
setting out to accomplish--we believe that the United States can reuse
significantly more water than it does today.
We also believe that greater water reuse would translate into
reduced energy consumption.
Even though we are not aware of any entity that has quantified this
potential, the WateReuse Association estimates that our nation can
easily double the amount of water it is reusing between now and 2015
(from 6% to 12%), based on current trends. In addition, with the advent
of a 30% Investment Tax Credit, the percentage of reuse would almost
certainly be much higher.
Question 2. As discussed today, one of the hurdles to coordinated
energy and water policy is that energy policy is developed at a
national level and water policies are more local and regional in
nature.
How much of an impediment is that to integrating energy and water
policy and what other impediments do you see to this goal?
Answer. Energy and water policies are closely related, and policies
developed in one of these areas--whether at a national or more local
level--could affect the other.
So, we believe that it is important to develop the policies in a
coordinated way so as to avoid unintended consequences.
With respect to the question of whether the national nature of
energy policy and the more local nature of water policies is an
impediment to a coordinated approach, we believe that this would be an
appropriate topic for the NSA study envisioned by the Energy and Water
Integration Act of 2009.
Question 3. Increasing our reclamation and reuse of wastewater was
recommended multiple times by this panel. You specifically mentioned
Israel's impressive reuse rate of 70%.
In addition to lack of incentives in the U.S., do you feel that
public perception of so-called gray water is a barrier to its use?
Answer. We have both industrial and municipal customers around the
world. In our experiences with these customers, we have not seen a
great level of concern about gray water on the industrial side. On the
municipal side, however, we have seen concern about gray water reuse
for drinking water and agricultural purposes.
Therefore, we do think there's a real and meaningful opportunity to
drive greater industrial water reuse via incentives.
We have not formally evaluated the perception issues related to
gray water, but we would refer you to the WateReuse Association, which
we believe has done a lot of work in this area.
Question 4. A recent by Ceres and the Pacific Institute stated that
it is critical that companies begin to treat water risks as a strategic
challenge. The report outlines the physical, reputational, and
regulatory risks to businesses and investors associated with water
scarcity.
In addition to the GE's commitment to reduce water consumption by
20% by 2012, what steps have you taken to analyze your water-related
business risks?
Answer. GE recognizes that it is important to evaluate water-
related business risks. Consequently, we consider near-and long-term
water availability issues when we plan expansions both here in the
United States and elsewhere in the world.
Question 5. Your testimony indicates that financial incentives are
necessary to drive greater water reuse in the U.S.
Based on your understanding of the market, is it your sense that
the relatively low-cost of water and the lack of a water supply crisis
in certain regions of the country are resulting in less demand for
water reuse systems in the short-term? Are companies and utilities
starting to look at water and energy together in evaluating ways to cut
costs
Answer. Not all areas are water scarce, and even within water
scarce areas, not all communities are experiencing water scarcity.
Also, the economics vary widely depending on whether a customer is
pulling water from a river or a municipal system, for example.
But, we are convinced that a broad-based federal incentive that
could be applied when and where it makes sense would definitely help
drive much greater reuse.
More specifically, we believe from our experiences with our tens of
thousands of industrial customers that a 30% investment tax credit
would drive substantial water reuse across our nation.
Responses of Stephen Bolze to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe how the United States can satisfy all
the expected water needs of newly proposed power plants, including
concentrated solar, in arid and semi-arid regions.
Answer. A recent DOE-sponsored study looked at 110 new power plants
proposed for construction in 2007 and found that municipal wastewater
treatment plants located within a 25 mile radius from the proposed
power plants could satisfy 97% of the new power plant cooling water
needs.
On average, one large wastewater treatment plant can completely
satisfy the cooling demand for each of these power plants.
In addition, wind and photo voltaic solar power generation
technologies use essentially no water.
Question 2. Are there any regions in the country that are not
expecting a significant water problem in the next decade?
Answer. Although we have not conducted an independent study of this
issue, the sources we relied on in preparing our written testimony
(GAO; WateReuse Association), suggest that water scarcity will play out
in different ways in different parts of the country.
In any event, the GAO 2003 map that we included in our written
testimony shows that--at least at the local level--every region on our
nation will likely experience some level of water shortages during the
next decade.
Question 3. Please describe how policies aimed at climate
mitigation and adaption may affect policies developed in the energy and
water sectors, and, specifically, the energy-water nexus.
Answer. Energy, climate and water policies are closely related, and
policies developed in any one of these areas could affect the other
two. So, we believe that it is important to develop the policies in a
coordinated way so as to avoid unintentional consequences.
We also believe that this is an appropriate topic for the NSA study
envisioned by the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009.
Question 4. Please describe the impact on energy use with stricter
treatment standards for water and wastewater. Are there any energy
related tradeoffs that may occur with stricter treatment standards?
Answer. Although stricter standards may in some cases require
greater energy, we believe that such energy demands can be minimized
through concerted energy-water nexus research and development..
Question 5. Please describe the impact of energy policies and
regulations on water demands and its availability.
Answer. Energy and water policies are closely related, and policies
developed in one of these areas could affect the other. So, we believe
that it is important to develop the policies in a coordinated way so as
to avoid unintended consequences. We also believe that this is an
appropriate topic for the NSA study envisioned by the Energy and Water
Integration Act of 2009.
Question 6. As we further examine the interrelationship between
water and energy, what type of qualitative data do you believe is
needed to better understand the connections to biodiversity and
ecological health?
Answer. We have not independently studied this issue, but we would
refer you to the WaterReuse Foundation in hopes that they can provide
you with this information.
Question 7. How can we encourage coordination and collaboration of
research, development and policy efforts in the energy-water domain,
with a view to cross-cutting learning?
Answer. The Federal government's role in providing structure and
oversight will help accelerate new technology developments in a more
coordinated way.
However, if we want to truly accelerate technology development, it
is going to take a community of government, the national labs, academia
and industry working together.
Industrial companies like GE have R+D pipelines and a direct path
to market for new solutions.
Working together with Federal government and other key
stakeholders, we will have the community we need to successfully carry
out a national clean water research and development initiative.
We also believe that this would be an appropriate subject for an
NSA study.
Question 8. Please describe the linkages between energy and water
consumption, as a society becomes more affluent. How do measures to
improve water use efficiency and energy efficiency correlate, as
societies become more affluent?
Answer. It is generally understood that as societies become more
affluent, the demand for water and energy becomes greater. And, as
demand increases, so does the need for greater efficiency.
Question 9. Please describe how water resource constraints can
become energy constraints during the next decade.
Answer. Energy and water are co-dependent. In simplest terms,
energy is required for making water and water is required in the
production of energy. Globally, the demand for both of these crucial
resources is projected to grow at an alarming pace, with energy demand
doubling and water demand tripling in the next 20 years.
As we prepare to meet the future electricity demands here in the
U.S., it is estimated that water demands related to electricity
production will almost triple from 1995 consumption levels. In
addition, the deployment of technologies to meet expected carbon
emission requirements will increase water consumption by an additional
1-2 billion gallons per day.
Response of Stephen Bolze to Question From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. Collocation of water treatment facilities and power
plants. Mr. Bolze, you suggested in your testimony that there be
incentives for municipal wastewater treatment plants to be built
alongside power generation plants so that the wastewater can meet the
cooling demand of the power plants. Could you explain the incentives
and technologies this requires? Would such collocation also help to
keep costs down for both facilities?
Answer. Rather than municipal wastewater plants treating and
discharging water back to a receiving stream, by adding an incremental
treatment process, either at the wastewater plant or at the industrial
plant, this water can meet the needs of many industrial processes,
including power plant cooling.
From an incentive standpoint, we believe that a 30% investment tax
credit would enable all industrial water users--including power
plants--to reuse significantly more water than they do today. We base
this belief on feedback from our 50,000 industrial customers around the
world.
From a technology standpoint, greater reuse is achievable through
chemical pre-treatment combined with advanced membrane-based
technologies (microfiltration, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration, and
reverse osmosis), and in some cases, advanced thermal technologies
(Zero Liquid Discharge).
______

Responses of Lon W. House, Ph.D., to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Several of you talked about the opportunity to reduce
energy consumption by reusing or conserving water. Mr. Bolze, your
testimony specifically references that the U.S. presently reclaims and
reuses 6% of its wastewater compared to other countries with much
higher percentages.
Can each of you comment on the magnitude of potential you see for
significant water savings yielding significant energy savings in this
country? Are we just at the tip of the iceberg with respect to the
water & energy savings possible through water conservation efforts? Has
any established entity quantified the potential?
Answer. Federal Facilities: Estimates of 24% of Federal water use
can be saved using cost-effective, existing ``off the shelf''
technologies, primarily domestic water fixtures\1\. Even more can be
saved using advanced technologies and improved process water using
equipment such as cooling towers, steam systems, and irrigation. The
GSA found that federal water conservation potential is estimated at 121
million gallons per day\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Update of Market Assessment for Capturing Water Conservation
Opportunities in the Federal Sector'', Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, PNNL-15320, August 2205
\2\ Water Management Guide: A Comprehensive Approach for Facility
Managers'' , General Services Administration, available at: http://
www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/waterguide_new_R2E-c-t-
r_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Systems: The most promising areas for intervention within
water supply systems are: improving the pumping system, managing leaks,
automating system operations, and regular monitoring (preferably with
metering of end use)\3\. While the water and energy savings are system
specific (but can reach 30%), it should be noted that these
improvements often pay for themselves in months, most do so within a
year, and almost all recover their costs within three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``WATERGY: Energy and Water Efficiency in Municipal Water
Supply and Wastewater Treatment'', The Alliance to Save Energy,
February 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Use: There are multiple state and regional estimates of
water conservation potentials. In California, the state Department of
Water Resources, in its current draft of the California Water Plan, is
using estimates of agricultural water conservation savings potential of
2 million acre-ft per year (with an investment of $75 million per
year)\4\ and urban water savings potential of 2.1 million acre-ft per
year (35% of total use)\5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``California Water Plan Update 2009--Draft'', Volume 2 Resource
Management Strategies, Chapter 2, Table 2-2.
\5\ ``California Water Plan Update 2009--Draft'', Volume 2 Resource
Management Strategies, Chapter 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. As discussed today, one of the hurdles to coordinated
energy and water policy is that energy policy is developed at a
national level and water policies are more local and regional in
nature.
How much of an impediment is that to integrating energy and water
policy and what other impediments do you see to this goal?
Answer. Appliances/Plumbing Fixtures: There are a number of
federally regulated appliances or equipment in the water sector.
``Federally-regulated commercial and industrial equipment'' is
commercial and industrial equipment for which there exists a test
method and an energy conservation standard prescribed by or under
EPAct. ``Federally-regulated consumer product'' is a consumer product
for which there exists a test method and an energy conservation
standard prescribed by or under NAECA.
One issue that should be addressed is the methodology on how the
federal standards are established. EO 13211 requires federal agencies
to conduct an analysis of energy and use it to develop a statement of
energy effects in any proposed rulemaking. However, only direct energy
use included. In particular, while energy savings are used in the
determination of standards for hot water using appliances and equipment
there is not a consideration of the energy savings associated with cold
water savings (e.g., with toilets).
Buildings: There are proposed green building ANSI standards
including ASHRAE Proposed ANSI Standard 189.1P Standard for the Design
of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings, GreenGlobes-Green Building Initiative (GBI) Proposed
American National Standard 01-2008P, and Green Building Assessment
Protocol for Commercial Buildings and National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) National Green Building Standard\6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Alliance for Water Efficiency, available at: http://
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/Green_Building_Introduction.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recycled/Reclaimed Water: Regulations on the use of recycled water
vary across the U.S.A. There are no national standards. California has
the most stringent regulations, as set by the Department of Public
Health (``multiple barrier'' approach).
The California State Water Resources Control Board recently adopted
a Recycled Water Policy in which established goals to increase recycled
water by an additional million acre-ft of water per year by 2020 and
substitution of as much recycled water for potable water as possible by
2030\7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/
water_recycling_policy/docs/final_policy_021109.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that water issues are generally local/
regional issues and there is a need to be able to respond to these
issues on a much smaller scale than at the national level. The
Association of California Water Agencies recently adopted water
conservation and efficiency policy principles that state it succinctly:

Water conservation and water use efficiency programs must
have the flexibility to adjust to widely varying local
circumstances. . . . Effective water conservation and water use
efficiency programs must be responsive to local circumstances,
including changing water supply sources, water uses and
demands, and water reliability challenges.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Water Conservation and Water Use Efficiency Policy
Principles'', Association of California Water Agencies, adopted March
27, 2008.

Question 3. While the majority of water-related electricity use is
by end users to pressurize, heat, cool and condition the water,
treatment of water is still a significant area of energy consumption.
Programs which encourage water conservation can minimize costs of both
drinking water and wastewater.
Which treatment type--drinking water treatment or wastewater
treatment--has the greatest potential for reduction of energy
intensity?
Follow-up: In addition to water conservation and efficiency
programs, are there additional policies, incentives, or technologies
that could further minimize either drinking water or wastewater
treatment?
Answer. There are two responses: improving the efficiency of the
treatment process, and increasing the amount of renewable generation
provided by the water/wastewater treatment facilities.
Improve Treatment Efficiency: Water treatment facilities can
decrease their energy use by 10-20% energy savings thru treatment
process optimization and another 10-20% energy savings thru equipment
modifications\9\. The following table* provides a summary of typical
standard equipment and high-efficiency equipment available for water/
wastewater treatment systems\10\. Drinking water typically starts with
cleaner water, but is generally treated to a higher quality (at least
in the past). Wastewater is generally ``dirtier'' than fresh water when
it starts the process, and the increased emphasis upon recycling water
use generally makes the wastewater treatment slightly more expensive.
However, as the industry shifts to lower quality water for potable
water, the energy requirement differences between fresh and waste water
are becoming increasingly blurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All tables and figures have been retained in committee files.
\9\ ACEEE Water and Wastewater Energy Road Map, American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy, available at: http://www.aceee.org/
industry/water.htm.
\10\ ``Municipal Water Treatment Plant Energy Baseline Study''
submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company by SBW Consulting, August
28, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Renewable Energy: Water/wastewater treatment facilities
have several characteristics that make them ideal locations for certain
types of renewable generation: they have a large amount of electricity
use on site; they are comfortable with up-front capital expenditures
for long lived projects; and they usually have a lot of open land
available at the site (treatment facilities maintain a buffer of land
around the treatment plant for aesthetic and siting purposes).
Solar--most of the over 200 kW solar generation facilities in
California are located at treatment facilities for the above mentioned
reasons. Indeed, one of the criticisms of the current California solar
program is that the renewable generation is limited to the amount of
electricity the treatment facility uses annually. The water agencies
have the space and inclination to install more solar generation if they
could be compensated for the excess electricity generated.
Biogas--shifting wastewater treatment from aerobic to anaerobic
treatment systems allows the wastewater treatment facility to generate
significant amounts of biogas (methane) for use in producing
electricity (via internal combustion engines, microturbines, or fuel
cells) and reduces the amount of natural gas used to keep their
digester beds warm. In California, the majority of wastewater treatment
facilities are using their own biogas for generation, and the remainder
of the facilities are in the process of converting to biogas generation
in order to meet Greenhouse Gas limit requirements. This biogas
generation is not limited to municipal water treatment. Farms, dairy
plants, and heavy industries could reduce or eliminate their energy
bills by running their high-strength organic wastewater streams through
treatment systems that generate methane biogas. In California, several
of the electric utilities have contracts to purchase biogas generated
by dairy farms and biogas produced electricity.
Question 4a. You advocate the installation of Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) as it is relatively inexpensive, and can provide
cost savings through the rapid identification of water leaks.
Can you estimate how expensive it would be to install such
infrastructure throughout California?
Answer. The investor owned electric utilities in the state are
spending $4 billion on Advanced Meter Reading (AMR) / Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) installations for their customers, so this may
serve as a reasonable estimate (except that the electric utility
systems are significantly more expensive that the AMR/AMI systems
considered by the water systems). A lot of the AMR/AMI infrastructure
is currently being installed in California water systems anyway.
Through a California Energy Commission study it was determined that
over one-half of the water agencies in the state have some level of AMR
on their system, and for 34% of the water systems AMR is the
predominant type of water meter\11\. Additionally, over 75% of the
water systems in California are interested in adding more AMR or AMI to
their systems in the next several years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CEC 500-07-022
\12\ House, L. W., ``Smartmeters and California Water Agencies:
Overview and Status'', California Energy Commission, in press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4b. Follow-up: Could cost-savings from improved leak
detection and reduced system loss offset the price of AMI in a
reasonable timeframe?
Answer. Administrative impacts are currently the primary reasons
for selecting AMR among the water systems in California. The
overwhelmingly dominant benefit expected from AMR is reduced meter
reading costs, followed by more efficient billing and increased
customer service. Operational benefits: the use of AMR in conservation
programs, loss detection, and in increasing safety/security for
personnel followed administrative benefits as reasons for selecting
AMR. The operational benefits from AMR are expected to change as
systems become more familiar with the technology and due to changes in
tariff design, as water conservation becomes increasingly more
important in California and as more water systems switch from
traditional tariff design to water budget tariffs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. Your testimony notes that a number of current financial
incentives for renewable energy do not work for publicly-owned water
systems.
Notwithstanding that problem, have California water agencies
proceeded with developing renewable energy supplies to integrate into
their systems? If so, what benefits are driving this integration?
Answer. Compensating Incentives for Non Tax Payers: In California,
we have adjusted the financial incentives for solar installation to
provide increased incentive levels for those customers who do not pay
taxes and cannot take advantage of tax credits, as the following table
shows. This table is the incentive payments for solar installations in
California under the California Solar Initiative (CSI). Note that the
payments are higher for government/non-profits to account for their
lack of ability to take advantage of tax incentives.
Power Purchase Arrangements: As the CSI rebates (above) continue to
drop but the tax incentives do not, the water agencies in California
are increasingly using Power Purchase Arrangements (PPA) as a means of
procuring solar power rather than owning the solar systems themselves.
Under a PPA, a water agency agrees to purchase electricity from a solar
generation installation on its land. The owner of the generation
equipment takes advantage of the accelerated depreciation and tax
credits in determining the price of the electricity sold to the water
agency.
Remote Net Metering Programs: Allow renewable generation at one
location to be credited against a portion of retail rates at another
system location. California's Assembly Bill (AB) 2466 is called the
Local Government Renewable Energy Self-Generation Program and is
codified as Section 2830 of the Public Utilities Code. It allows
government entities to generate renewable energy at one location, and
have it credited against part (the generation part only) of retail
rates at another location. It is still under development but the size
limit of 1 MW and the inability to access any other incentives in the
development of the renewable project are limiting its usefulness.
Renewables Feed-In Tariffs: Provide a utility standard contract
with specified renewable energy price. California's Assembly Bill (AB)
1969 added Public Utilities Code Section 399.20, authorizing tariffs
and standard contracts for the purchase of eligible renewable
generation from public water and wastewater facilities. It has size
limitations (1 MW) and the inability to access any other incentives in
the development of renewable projects is resulting in less renewable
generation that could be developed. However, several small in-conduit
hydroelectric generation projects are being developed under this
program.
Responses of Lon W. House, Ph.D., to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe how the United States can satisfy all
the expected water needs of newly proposed power plants, including
concentrated solar, in arid and semi-arid regions.
Answer. Providing sufficient water for power plants that use
significant amounts of water in arid/semi-arid regions of the country
will continue to be a challenge (PV solar, certain types of
concentrating solar such as the Stirling engines, and wind use
negligible amounts of water in their operation).
Water use for solar has become an issue in California. The Beacon
Solar Energy Project is a proposed concentrated solar electric
generating facility proposed on an approximately 2,012-acre site in
Kern County, California. The project will use parabolic trough solar
thermal technology to produce electrical power using a steam turbine
generator (STG) fed from a solar steam generator (SSG). The SSG
receives heated heat transfer fluid (HTF) from solar thermal equipment
comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the
sun.
As the California Energy Commission Status Report #6 notes `` . . .
one issue, use of potable water for power plant cooling, was
highlighted in the Committee's scheduling order because `The Committee
is interested in alternative cooling technologies and alternative
cooling water sources that may be used at the plant to reduce the
projects need for groundwater. . .''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/beacon/
documents/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Are there any regions in the country that are not
expecting a significant water problem in the next decade?
Answer. While there are the chronic water shortage problem areas
such California and the desert Southwest, we are seeing water problems
in areas that previously never experienced them, such as the Southeast.
A recent article stated that 36 of the states are facing water
shortages within the next decade\15\. Combine shortage problems with
climate changes with current concerns about radionuclides and
pharmaceuticals in the water and there are virtually no major areas of
the country that are immune to water problems in the next decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``At Least 36 U.S. States Face Water Shortage'', by David
Gutierrez, Natural News, March 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Please describe how policies aimed at climate
mitigation and adaption may affect policies developed in the energy and
water sectors, and, specifically, the energy-water nexus.
Answer. In California, Green House Gas (GHG) emission targets are
pushing water utilities to improve efficiency of operation (to reduce
energy consumption), increase water conservation programs (to reduce
water provided and the associated energy used), are converting
wastewater treatment to biogas operation (to reduce methane emissions)
and are increasing renewable generation, primarily solar and small
hydroelectric.
Question 4. Please describe the impact on energy use with stricter
treatment standards for water and wastewater. Are there any energy
related tradeoffs that may occur with stricter treatment standards?
Answer. It is a truism that all of the increased treatment
requirements increase energy use over past operations. As we control to
lower and lower allowable limits, increase the number of contaminants
treated for, and are investigating treating for even more problem
chemicals such as radionuclides and pharmaceuticals, the treatment
process and energy requirements for the treatment are increasing
significantly. Combine increased treatment requirements for these
contaminants with using poorer and poorer quality water for water
supply (such as brackish or sea water) and in the next decade water
systems are expected to add significant amounts of new electrical load
as they access previously unused water sources and address increased
treatment requirements\16\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ House, L. W.2007. ``Will Water Cause The Next Electricity
Crisis?'' Water Resources Impact 9 (1), January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent AWWA article details the increased energy costs associated
with water regulations, finding that the 18 National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations adopted between 1975 and 2006 cost 1.8 billion kWh
per year in increased energy use and an additional $187 million per
year in costs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Drinking Water Regulations: Estimated Cumulative Energy Use
and Costs'', by S. J. Reiling, Journal AWWA, March 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. Please describe the impact of energy policies and
regulations on water demands and its availability.
Answer. The impact depends upon the generation technology used and
the water used. Certain renewables such as PV solar and certain
concentrating (non thermal) solar, wind, and hydroelectric generation
do not materially impact water demands. If recycled water is used, the
impact on fresh water is reduced. The largest geothermal generation
field in the world, the Geysers in Northern California, is being
``fueled'' by recycled water from the City of Santa Rosa. Many of the
new generation facilities in California likewise are using recycled
water.
Question 6. As we further examine the interrelationship between
water and energy, what type of qualitative data do you believe is
needed to better understand the connections to biodiversity and
ecological health?
The goal of Study 2 is to characterize and quantify
the relationships between water and energy use by water and
wastewater agencies, and to determine the range of magnitudes
and key drivers of embedded energy in water.

Study 3: End-Use Water Demand Profile Study

Study 3 is designed to provide accurate hourly water
use profiles. End-use Water Demand Profile study measures cold
water demands of six end-use (customer) categories:

1. Residential (Normal and Low-income, Single-
family)
2. Residential (Low-income, Multi-family)
3. Commercial
4. Industrial
5. Public Buildings
6. Agriculture

The final analysis is the Embedded Energy in Water Pilot Programs
measurement and verification. The focus is on verifying and quantifying
the water and energy saved as a result of water-use reduction measures.
There are a host of measures being tested, ranging from pH controllers
to laundry ozone retrofits to high efficiency toilets to recycled water
use to leak detection. These studies/programs are underway, and results
expected in 2010.
Question 7. How can we encourage coordination and collaboration of
research, development and policy efforts in the energy-water domain,
with a view to cross-cutting learning?
Answer. Federal responsibility for water (primarily with the
Environmental Protection Agency) and for energy (primarily with the
Department of Energy) reside in different federal agencies (the
Department of Interior is heavily involved with water supply and energy
in the western states).

--Joint studies and research on the water and energy can be
initiated
--These agencies should be required to address both water and
energy as part of their on-going mandate (the EPA should
evaluate energy impacts when developing water policy and
regulations and the DoE should address water impacts of
energy policy and regulations).

There is considerable value associated with developing the science,
research, and monitoring techniques to address new generation products,
and associated water pollution before the fact, as opposed to investing
in costly remedial work after the water has become contaminated.
California has initiated a Green Chemistry Initiative which seeks to
eliminate or reduce the use of toxic substances in products and
manufacturing processes rather than managing wastes at the end of a
product's lifecycle\19\ that could be followed on a national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/
GreenChemistryInitiative/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 8. Please describe the linkages between energy and water
consumption, as a society becomes more affluent. How do measures to
improve water use efficiency and energy efficiency correlate, as
societies become more affluent?
Answer. Energy use tends to increase with increasing affluence.
Water use tends to increase initially with a rise in affluence, and
then stabilize. It is axiomatic that water consumes energy and energy
consumes water. Saving water will save energy, but saving energy does
not necessarily save water. These two resources have fundamentally
different characteristics that influence policy decisions.
--There are very limited sources of additional fresh water
available (primarily desalinization of sea water) but there
are a host of options available for the creation of
electricity.
--As stated in my previous testimony, water conservation tends to
result in more consistent and stable savings as compared to
energy conservation, primarily because new technologies are
constantly being developed to use electricity. The energy
use in California has tracked the population growth, while
water use has remained flat for the last 30 years.
--Water issues tend to be localized (or regionalized) while energy
concerns tend to be more national (the price and
availability of oil has national implications while the
price and availability of water in Los Angeles primarily
concerns Los Angelians.

In my opinion, the water crisis is a more pressing matter than the
energy crisis, because there are fewer options available to address it.
Question 9. Please describe how water resource constraints can
become energy constraints.
Answer. Depending on the type of cooling tower, the cooling process
for thermal electrical generators can account for up to 90%-95% of
total plant water use\20\. However, there are options that can
significantly reduce the amount of fresh water used in electricity
production. As the following table shows, two states, Florida and
California, have the majority of power plants using reclaimed water\21\
with Texas close behind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Comparison of Alternate Cooling Technologies for California
Power Plants'', California Energy Commission. 2002, CEC500-02-079F
\21\ ``Use of Reclaimed Water for Powerplant Cooling'', Argonne
National Laboratory, ANL/EVS/R-07/3, August 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 19, 1975, amid concerns about the diminishing availability
of fresh water in California, the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) adopted its ``Water Quality Control Policy on the Use and
Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Powerplant Cooling'' (Resolution
No.75-58)\22\. Resolution 75-58 states that from a water quantity and
quality standpoint, the source of power plant cooling water should come
from the following sources (in order of priority): (1) wastewater being
discharged to the ocean, (2) ocean water, (3) brackish water or natural
sources of irrigation return flow, (4) inland wastewaters of low total
dissolved solids (TDS), and (5) other inland waters. Where the SWRCB
has jurisdiction, use of fresh inland waters for power plant cooling
will be approved by the Board only when it is demonstrated that the use
of other water supply sources or other methods of cooling would be
environmentally undesirable or economically unsound. Additionally,
California Water Code Section 13550 et seq. requires the use of
effluent for industrial purposes, especially for cooling, where it is
available. In 1997, the siting agency in the state, the California
Energy Commission (CEC), and the SWRCB entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding in order to coordinate the review of projects for which a
regional water quality control board or the SWRCB have authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ www.swrcb.ca.gov/plnspols/wqplans/pwrplant.doc
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of dry cooling versus wet cooling for power plant
operations has the following impacts:

--the use of dry cooling reduces plant water requirements by about
90%,
--an associated increased plant capital cost of about 5% to 15% of
the total plant cost for the dry cooling system,
--energy out reductions of 1% to 2%, and
--capacity reduction of 4% to 6%.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Cost and Value of Water Use at Combined-Cycle Power
Plants'', California Energy Commission, CEC-500-2006-034, April 2006

Question 10. What percentage of water used in California comes from
reused water?
Answer. Currently 6% of the water use in California is from
reclaimed water, but that percentage is projected to increase to 20% in
the next two decades. The following table lists recycled water use in
California in 2002.
Recycled water use has increased sharply since 2000, in part due to
the increased use by electric power plants.
The state water plan developed by the Department of Water
Resources, the California Water Plan\24\, lists 1,670 acre-ft per year
of recycled water in its future portfolio of available water for
consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 11. Please explain the energy requirements of reused water
compared to freshwater use in California, particularly in southern
California.
Answer. While there is a considerable range in the energy
requirements of fresh water, recycled water tends to have a much
narrower spread, as the following table illustrates\25\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``California's Water--Energy Relationship'', California Energy
Commission, CEC-700-2005-011-SF, November 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the following table\26\ shows, for the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency, recycled water has the lowest energy intensity of any of the
water sources available. This relationship is typical for water
agencies in Southern California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 12. How do the figures for water reuse compare to other
states, and or nations with limited water supplies?
Answer. The majority of water reuse in the U.S. occurs in four
southern and western states. As the response to Question 9 states, the
water reuse in these states is driven not only by a shortage of fresh
water, but also by the extensive use of reclaimed water for power plant
use.
Question 13. How do you weigh the ecological impacts of seawater
use for energy production verses inland facilities, that likely use
fresh water?
Answer. For humans, fresh water is more valuable that salt water.
As stated in response to Question 9 above, it is very difficult to site
a power facility inland in California that uses fresh water without
going to some alternative form of cooling or water. California is also
in the midst of evaluating a ban on once through cooling for power
plants located on the coast due to its environmental impact.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/
cwa316.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response of Lon W. House, Ph.D., to Question From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. Water scarcity in non-arid regions. When we talk about
water supply, we often think immediately of California and the arid
Southwest. Yet the groundwater situation around the Great Lakes is poor
and we're facing major groundwater depletion around population centers
like Chicago, Milwaukee, and Detroit. Furthermore, those areas have
faced additional pressure on supply due to compacts with Canada
restricting water extraction from the Great Lakes. I have also been
told that in Michigan, a power plant application was denied due to lack
of water availability. Could you expand upon this a bit more, to
explain why the Great Lakes region also requires better water
efficiency, although one might not realize it?
Answer. Clean fresh water is a premium resource. The use of such a
valuable resource to carry heat away from a power plant may not be the
highest and best use, particularly when there are a number of
alternative ways to either produce the power or dispose of the heat.
Even in areas of perceived water abundance such as the Great Lakes
area, there is conflict over water policy and use\28\. In 2008, the
governments of the eight states in the Great Lakes basin adopted the
Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (the
Compact)\29\, which was recently ratified by the federal government to
finalize the agreement\30\. The Compact puts strict limits on water use
in an attempt to minimize future threats to the region\31\. One of the
major objectives of the Compact is water conservation and efficiency
goals and programs. These goals and programs are attempts to minimize
water use and create sustainable use of the water within the Great
Lakes area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``The Great Lakes Water Wars'', by Peter Annin, Island Press,
August 2006.
\29\ ``The Great Lakes-St Lawrence River Basin Water Resources
Compact'', Final Report, August 15, 2007.
\30\ Signed October 3, 2008, by President Bush. The U.S. House of
Representatives voted to approve the Compact by a 390 to 25 vote on
September 23rd. The U.S. Senate approved the Compact on August 8, 2008.
\31\ The Compact prohibits all new or increased diversions from the
Basin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______

Responses of Carl Bauer to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. The Energy-Water Research & Development Roadmap process
was initiated in 2005 at the request of Congress, and 5.531 directs DOE
to complete the process. What is the current status of the Roadmap, and
when do you anticipate its completion?
Answer. DOE participates in the energy-water nexus team, a
collaborative effort among many DOE National Laboratories. The team
conducted a series of roadmapping workshops and examined issues at the
nexus of energy and water. A Roadmap has been completed in ``final
draft'' form and is being reviewed and refined by DOE Headquarters.
Question 2. Your testimony notes that combining IGCC with carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technologies results in a generating facility
with a greatly reduced carbon footprint and relatively low water
consumption. Taking into account electricity output, carbon footprint,
and consumptive water use, is it your view that future research and
development efforts should focus on combined IGCC-CCS facilities if we
are trying to integrate energy and water policies?
Answer. While IGCC may offer significant advantages over the
existing fleets' aging pulverized coal technology in terms of its
efficiency, ability to capture carbon, and water consumption, it is not
a universal solution. IGCC is primarily an option applicable to new
coal-fired power plants; however, the existing fleet of approximately
300 GW will likely be with us for a long time. Therefore, more
affordable, efficient carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology
applicable to these existing pulverized coal (PC) plants needs to be
developed, such as post-combustion carbon capture and conversion of PC
plants to oxy-combustion technology.
For the same reason, it is important for DOE to continue its CCS
water management research effort that is applicable to both IGCC and PC
power plants. As stated in the testimony, an IGCC power plant's water
consumption is approximately 40 percent less than that of a subcritical
PC power plant without CCS. NETL analyses indicate that using current
near-commercial CCS technologies on PC plants would more than double
the amount of water consumed per unit of electricity generated. While
the water consumption for IGCC with CCS also increases, IGCC still has
a comparative advantage, with water consumption significantly lower
than that of post-combustion CCS technologies.
It should also be noted that the comparison of IGCC to PC
technology is site specific. For new coal plants using Western coals at
high altitudes, the cost differences between IGCC and supercritical
pulverized coal (PC) combustion are relatively small. For example, for
IGCC at 5000 feet site elevation, the air density is down by 13
percent, causing IGCC gas turbine generator output to be reduced by 13
percent, and also impacting gas turbine efficiency, as well as the
efficiency of the air separation unit. As a result, at high altitudes,
the cost advantages of supercritical PC with CCS over IGCC may heavily
influence the choice of technology, if adequate supplies of water are
available.
Question 3. Your testimony provides valuable information about the
current energy/water R&D efforts taking place at NETL, specifically as
they relate to carbon capture and storage, and the impacts of CCS on
water availability and quality. Can you comment on other R&D activities
throughout DOE that relate to the energy/water nexus?
Answer. While the Office of Fossil Energy and NETL have been
actively pursuing water R&D specific to CCS, as outlined in my
testimony, the amount of R&D in the Department of Energy targeted
specifically at water issues has been limited. Water technology
development opportunities tend to be relatively low risk, incremental
change, with incentives for the private sector from regulatory drivers.
However, the Department has aggressively pursued development of
renewable energy technologies, such as solar and wind, that have very
low consumptive water requirements, which will be an important option
for our energy future, particularly in water-limited areas.
Question 4. Current carbon capture technologies would increase
freshwater withdrawal and consumption by fossil-based power plants. You
state that pulverized coal plants that capture 90% of carbon emissions
use twice as much water per unit of electricity generated. Can you
provide more details on how this additional water is consumed, and
potential areas for reducing water consumption in the CCS process?
Answer. The additional water consumed for a pulverized coal-fired
power plant with CCS is due primarily to the increased cooling duties
of the CCS process. In general, as the cooling duty of the wet
recirculation cooling system increases, more water is consumed by
evaporation. In particular, the following three factors increase the
duty of the cooling system: (1) additional cooling capacity for the
further cooling of the flue gas before it enters the CCS process; (2)
additional cooling water to cool the absorption solvent; and (3)
cooling water to remove heat from the compression stages of the
CO2 compressor.
Furthermore, these additional loads also lower the power output of
the plant, resulting in less net electricity generation. For example,
if CCS were added to a subcritical power plant originally designed to
provide 550-MW-net power, it would deliver approximately 15 percent
less electricity to the grid. The lower net output and higher
consumptive water use results in the marked increase in water
consumption on a net output (gal/MWh net) basis.
DOE is directing research at advanced CCS technologies that have
the potential to reduce water use. Dry and hybrid cooling technologies
can also be incorporated into CCS plant designs--although at added cost
and reduced performance--to lessen the load on the cooling tower and
therefore reduce water consumption.
Question 5 One of the primary goals of this legislation is to
integrate decision-making related to energy and water. The policy and
regulatory framework for these resources is currently under the purview
of a variety of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.
Recognizing that allocating and managing water typically falls under
state jurisdiction, what role can the federal government, through the
Departments of Energy, play in the successful integration of energy and
water policy?
Answer. The Department of Energy's (DOE's) role is focused on the
development of advanced energy system technology to meet cost,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water use, and environmental goals. It
is important that the selection and development of these advanced
technologies be guided by achieving energy and water goals. This
understanding is gained through integrated energy system analyses that
provide an understanding of the life-cycle cost, water requirements,
and environmental impacts of an energy system. The DOE is implementing
technology R&D and systems analysis projects that will provide
technology and understanding to support the states in their planning,
allocation, and management of water resources. The DOE must take an
active role in disseminating these results to regulators and other
Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as to the general public.
DOE will continue to work very closely with other agencies where they
have the lead role in setting regulations. An example is the recent
work where DOE worked closely with the Environmental Protection Agency
as they developed their proposed rule for carbon dioxide geologic
sequestration wells in the Underground Injection Control Program under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. That draft rule was published by EPA in
July 2008.
Responses of carl Bauer to Question From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe how the United States can satisfy all
the expected water needs of newly proposed power plants, including
concentrated solar, in arid and semi-arid regions.
Answer. Satisfying the expected water needs of newly proposed power
plants requires an understanding of each region's situation. Two
important parameters to be considered include the current and
forecasted competing needs for water (e.g., public, electric power,
agriculture, industry) in a region, and the cost and performance of
technology choices for that region. The DOE is carrying out R&D on a
wide range of advanced technologies for electric power focused on
minimizing water requirements. These technologies range from advanced
integrated coal gasification fuel cell plant concepts that have minimal
water consumption requirements, since they do not utilize a steam
turbine cycle, to the use of solar energy systems with essentially no
water consumption. DOE also carries out systems studies to analyze the
integration of an electric power energy system concept into the
region's requirements and constraints. Satisfying expected water needs
also requires a long-term view. This perspective is provided through an
understanding of the life-cycle cost, water requirements, and
environmental impacts of an energy system.
Question 2. Are there any regions in the country that are not
expecting a significant water problem in the next decade?
Answer. There is data that suggests that all regions of the
continental United States are at risk of strain on freshwater
resources. As described in a 2003 GAO survey (GAO-03-514), water
managers of nearly every state indicated that under average water
conditions, some degree of potential freshwater shortage is likely in
the coming decade. Since then, many regions have experienced drought
conditions, particularly the arid West and Southeast, and are presently
experiencing acute water availability issues.
Credibly projecting future water problems requires adequate
estimates of freshwater supplies and future water needs of competitive
water-use sectors. DOE collects design and operating data for the
existing fleet of thermoelectric power plants. In DOE systems analyses,
detailed water balances are evaluated for conventional and advanced
coal-based technologies including carbon capture. Based on these
analyses and Energy Information Administration (EIA) annual projections
of future energy supply and demand, DOE estimates water needs for a
range of future energy scenarios, including scenarios with carbon
constraints. EIA's recent trend for forecasting new thermoelectric
power generation, through 2030, has been to show declines in demand,
due, in part, to increased reliance on efficiency and demand response.
This is tending to alleviate the concern for related increases in water
demand from the power sector. While these projections provide future
water demand of only one water-use sector, these results still indicate
that the Southeastern and Southwest regions are most at risk for an
increase in water use by this sector. However, all regions show
increased water consumption, and given the 2003 survey results provided
by GAO, suggest that all regions continue to be at risk for water
problems in the coming years. It is difficult to project future water
problems, given uncertainties associated with climate change impacts on
precipitation patterns, changes in energy production/generation in
response to climate regulations, and other regional factors such as
population growth and shifts in regional domestic, industrial, or
agricultural water demand. As such, the Department recognizes the
importance to accurately characterize the water requirements of various
energy technologies to aid in answering questions related to water
demand over the next decade.
Question 3. Please describe how policies aimed at climate
mitigation and adaption may affect policies developed in the energy and
water sectors, and, specifically, the energy-water nexus.
Answer. In general, policies aimed at climate mitigation will raise
the cost of energy. As that cost rises, the cost of treating water,
both for drinking and for reuse or disposal, will rise. Given the
population increase in the Desert Southwest, for example, relatively
costly schemes for desalination of brine for human use will become even
more costly, as these technologies are energy-intensive. In addition,
the use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at fossil plants,
whether coal or natural gas, requires incremental energy capacity and
water for the added process. In cases where the water used must be
reclaimed, as in California, the process will become even more energy
intensive. Nuclear plants, which may become more desirable due to their
low carbon footprint, consume even more water per unit of energy
produced than a fossil-energy plant with CCS. In non-drought afflicted
areas, such as the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, the cooling water
requirements of CCS are not an issue with respect to water
availability, most of the time. However, clean air and clean water
policies sometimes conflict. For example, the installation of
SO2 scrubbers leads to more water discharges from power
plants. For pulverized coal plants, this issue would be exacerbated by
CCS retrofits, as the scrubber must be larger to more stringently
remove sulfur. In addition, for reliability, large-scale renewable
energy requires an almost equivalent matching amount of simple-cycle
gas turbines, likely without CCS. Such turbines will be run
inefficiently to account for wind variability and/or run intensively
during peak demand periods when the wind capacity factors are low, such
as the month of August. New baseload power--either fossil with CCS or
nuclear--brings along increased water needs and must be dealt with to
help make energy supply more reliable.
Question 4. Please describe the impact on energy use with stricter
treatment standards for water and wastewater. Are there any energy
related tradeoffs that may occur with stricter treatment standards?
Answer. Stricter treatment standards for water and wastewater could
have the potential to impact energy use. Energy requirements for water
supply and treatment range broadly from 1,900 to 23,700 kWh per million
gallons of water. Whether stricter treatment standards would require
significant levels of additional energy use would likely be project-
specific and dependent on the methods of treatment required to meet
this standard. For example, chemically-based treatment systems could
require minimal energy use, compared to filtration-based treatment
systems, such as reverse osmosis, which require significant energy use.
Question 5. Please describe the impact of energy policies and
regulations on water demands and its availability.
Answer. It is estimated that the deployment of carbon capture
systems using today's pulverized coal technology would approximately
double the water consumed per Megawatt-hour generated by pulverized
coal power plants. NEIL has initiated an aggressive RD&D program to
significantly improve the overall technical and economic performance of
CO2 capture technology that would result in a reduction in the water
consumption. Using IGCC technology with CCS--building on the existing
gasification and CCS technology used at the Dakota Gasification
Company's Beulah, North Dakota facility--would significantly reduce the
water consumption.
In general, where water availability is an issue, power plant use
of water will be an issue. A similar statement may be made with respect
to water quality. Nonetheless, it bears repeating that power
consumption of water is quite small relative to agriculture and public
consumption. Broadly speaking, current Federal energy policy affects
water demand in the following ways: the ethanol mandate increases water
demand because ethanol plants are very water intensive; a new Phase II
of Rule 316(b) of the Clean Water Act could increase water consumption
due to the construction of recirculating systems to replace or
substitute for once-through systems, and natural gas production leads
to produced water that may affect groundwater quality. At the present
time, current state-level regulations and permitting practices have a
larger effect on power plants and associated water demands than do
Federal ones, since states have jurisdiction over siting. Advancing
renewable portfolio standards in many states could reduce the use of
water, as both wind and biomass use is less water-intensive in
generation than coal or natural gas. However, this will come at a
tradeoff with cost and reliability, and, in the case of biomass, water
benefits may be partially offset on a life-cycle basis by increased
irrigation.
Question 6. As we further examine the interrelationship between
water and energy, what type of qualitative data do you believe is
needed to better understand the connections to biodiversity and
ecological health?
Answer. We believe that it would be valuable to quantify how
different types of ecosystems and water flows react to changing land
use for energy applications. The development of interagency
collaboration between Federal agencies with expertise in energy-related
water and biodiversity systems--as well as with state energy,
environmental, climate, and geological agencies--would be necessary in
that regard. DOE currently participates in a number of inter-agency
working groups organized around issues (and technologies) of interest
that crosscut the missions of participating departments. Creating a
focus for more formal coordination among Federal departments and state
agencies who share a common interest could be a first step in fostering
the more effective stewardship, production, and use of energy resources
and force a broader view of the interrelationship of energy, water,
biodiversity, and the planet's ecological health.
Question 7. How can we encourage coordination and collaboration of
research, development and policy efforts in the energy-water domain,
with a view to cross-cutting learning?
Answer. Coordination and collaboration needs to play a vital role
in addressing the complex interactions among energy, water, and the
environment in the United States. DOE actively collaborates with other
parties from industry, academia, state, and other Federal departments
in analyzing and attempting to mitigate the impact of energy production
on water supply.
Question 8. Please describe the linkages between energy and water
consumption, as a society becomes more affluent. How do measures to
improve water use efficiency and energy efficiency correlate, as
societies become more affluent?
Answer. Energy consumption is correlated with affluence for poor
and mid-income countries, but amongst more affluent countries there is
less correlation between wealth and energy consumption. Enhanced water
quality comes from not only the direct reduction of pollution but also
at the cost of greater energy intensity for water treatment. Therefore,
enhanced water-use efficiency will offset a portion of that increased
energy intensity. Refurbishing existing fossil plants to higher
efficiency levels would immediately reduce energy intensity per gallon
used. Greater end-use efficiency of lights and appliances and buildings
may reduce the growth in consumption of energy and therefore of water
associated with energy production.
Question 9. Please describe how water resource constraints can
become energy constraints.
Answer. Water constraints can most certainly lead to energy
constraints. Most existing baseload generation is thermoelectric
(nuclear and coal) and hydro. Without adequate water resources, these
plants cannot operate at full capacity. Any water restrictions could
cause a unit to reduce its output or temporarily go offline, as seen in
the summer of 2007 and described below. Satisfying peak energy demand
during a sustained drought can be especially difficult. Unfortunately,
drought conditions and peak energy demand usually occur at the same
time.
A February 19, 2009, report, Thirsty Energy: Water and Energy in
the 21g Century, by the World Economic Forum and Cambridge Energy
Research Associates (CERA) describes the problem (page 30): ``Although
power plants are not generally charged for water, their permits
designate the amount of water they are allowed to remove and consume
from a water body and the quality of the water that must be returned to
the water body, including a maximum temperature. The amount of water
the power plant is allowed to withdraw or consume is based on providing
enough water for all uses, including maintaining the environmental and
ecological quality of the water source.''
In times of severe stress, the availability of water for power
plant usage becomes an issue. For example, the recent drought in the
Southeast during the summer of 2007 forced a Southeast U.S. power
company to reduce power for some of their units and take other units
offline at times to comply with temperature discharge restrictions.
Response of Carl Bauer to Question From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. Interoffice coordination on water efficiency at DOE.
What is the Department's approach to the impact of energy production on
water? In the various offices that focus on nuclear power, fossil
fuels, and EERE (including both renewable energy and biofuels), are
there synergies work together to share information and implement policy
to improve water efficiency in energy production?
Answer. Coordination and collaboration plays a vital role in
addressing the complex interactions among energy and water in the
United States. DOE actively collaborates with other parties from
industry, academia, state, and other Federal departments and national
laboratories in analyzing and attempting to mitigate the impact of
energy production on water supply. Statutorily, the Environmental
Protection Agency, through the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water
Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has regulatory
authority for water issues on the federal level. The US DOE, however,
is often part of relevant interagency review processes, such as review
of Section 316B of the Clean Water Act, which regulates Cooling Water
Intake Structures. As you suggest, synergies do exist between thermal
power generation technologies (fossil and nuclear) regarding their
water usage requirements and the potential for alternative cooling
approaches.
The DOE actively researches energy-water issues associated with
coal plants. Other DOE Offices, such as EERE, are developing energy
technologies that require very little water for power generation. DOE's
national laboratories also collaborate in ongoing research efforts, for
studying the impacts of power technologies upon water systems. A
valuable ongoing collaboration is DOE's participation in what is known
as the Energy-Water Nexus Team--a multi-laboratory team consisting of
12 National Laboratories and the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI). The Energy-Water Nexus Team has hosted several regional needs
assessment workshops and more focused workshops on gaps analysis and
technology innovations. These workshops have involved wide
representation from government, industry, interested organizations, and
academia, and have provided input and perspectives on emerging regional
and national energy and water needs and challenges, as well as energy
and water science and technology research directions.
______

Responses of Michael E. Webber to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Several of you talked about the opportunity to reduce
energy consumption by reusing or conserving water. Mr. Bolze, your
testimony specifically references that the U.S. presently reclaims and
reuses 6% of its wastewater compared to other countries with much
higher percentages.
Can each of you comment on the magnitude of potential you see for
significant water savings yielding significant energy savings in this
country? Are we just at the tip of the iceberg with respect to the
water & energy savings possible through water conservation efforts? Has
any established entity quantified the potential?
Answer. It is my determination that water conservation is fertile
territory for the nation to save both water and energy. We have much
further to go in terms of conservation. The water and wastewater sector
is responsible for 3% of the nation's electricity use. Residential
water heating is responsible for another 3-4% of the nations'
electricity use. Combining all other end-uses and forms of energy, it's
likely that water consumption is responsible for at least 10% of the
nation's energy consumption. Therefore, reducing water consumption can
have significant cross-over benefits for energy consumption. Please
note that it would be valuable to quantify these magnitudes more
precisely. Regional studies (e.g. for the state of California) have
already been performed, but a national estimate has not been conducted
to my knowledge.
Question 2. As discussed today, one of the hurdles to coordinated
energy and water policy is that energy policy is developed at a
national level and water policies are more local and regional in
nature.
How much of an impediment is that to integrating energy and water
policy and what other impediments do you see to this goal?
Answer. The mismatch in policymaking and regulatory structures for
water and energy creates important hurdles for formulating integrated
energy-water policies. For example, no agency is responsible for water
quantity at a federal level (the EPA is responsible presumably for
water quality), which complicates the policymaking for water issues
that span municipalities, counties, or states. If several local
governments wish to take a watershed approach to resource management,
it would be useful for them to have federal agencies to work with, akin
to the energy industry, which has the FERC, DoE, and others. Other
impediments include the mismatched market structures. Energy markets
are becoming deregulated and competitive, whereas most water markets
remain controlled by government monopolies, and so the policy context
in which they operate are different.
Question 3. In your testimony, you mention that the current trend
in energy production, with the exception of wind, solar, and low-
irrigation biofuel crops is moving us toward more water-intensive
energy sources. This is especially true for transportation fuels as we
explore the use of domestically available unconventional fossil fuels,
and irrigated biofuel crops.
Which energy sector--electricity generation or transportation fuel
production--do you feel has the greatest potential to reduce its water
intensity in the near term?
Follow-up: What emerging energy technologies have the greatest
potential to achieve water savings, and what is necessary to encourage
broader deployment?
Answer. The electricity sector has greater ability to change its
water use in the near term because they have several cooling options
available. Power plants that use once-through cooling can switch to
cooling towers. Power plants that use cooling towers (with water) can
switch to those that are either dry-cooling towers that use air, or
hybrid towers that use a combination of air and water. Because these
technologies already exist and have been demonstrated, it is easier for
them to make the switch (though there might be significant capital
costs or parasitic losses to efficiency from cooling techniques that
are less water-intensive). For the transportation fuels industry, the
key breakthrough would be developing biofuels that require much smaller
water inputs per unit of useful energy that is produced, primarily by
switching away from energy crops such as corn, which are particularly
water-intensive. These breakthroughs might be in the realm of
bioengineering, genetic modifications, catalytic conversion techniques,
and so forth. In addition, conservation technologies are particularly
valuable and cost-effective.
Question 4a. You state in your testimony that the transition to new
fuels might increase water consumption from one trillion gallons per
year to a few trillion gallons of water per year.
Is there any future scenario where water use might actually be
reduced in the transportation sector, such as a significant transition
to hybrid or plug-in hybrid vehicles with a large increase in
renewable-based electricity generation, particularly wind?
Answer. Widespread electrification of the transportation sector
along with a shift towards electricity sources that do not require much
water (natural gas, solar PV, wind, etc.) could reduce the amount of
water that is used for transportation fuel production. Staying with a
conventional mix of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel, but using less
of it through stricter fuel economy standards and reductions in vehicle
miles traveled, could also lessen the total amount of water required
for transportation fuels production.
At the hearing, there was discussion about solar thermal, and how
much water it consumes relative to coal, natural gas, and nuclear
generation.
Question 4b. Can you provide additional information on that subject
for the record?
Answer. Most power plants that use heat to generate steam require
cooling, and that cooling is usually provided by water. Nuclear, coal,
natural gas, oil and solar thermal (concentrating solar power) power
plants all use water for cooling, except for a few instances where dry
cooling is used instead. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 below (from ``The Energy
Water Nexus in Texas,'' by Ashlynn S. Stillwell, et al., April 2009),
compare the water requirements for different fuels and cooling methods.
Concentrating solar power (CSP) has similar water requirements as solar
power, withdrawing approximately 840 gallons of cooling water per MWh
of electricity that is generated, and consuming the same amount. CSP
withdraws less water than typical nuclear power plants, but consumes
more. CSP uses more water than both coal and natural gas. Solar PV and
wind use much less water.
The references for Tables 1.1 and 1.2 are as follows:

17. Goldstein, R. and W. Smith. electric Power Research
Institute. Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water
Consumption for Power Production--The Next Half Century.
1006786. Palo Alto, CA, March 2002.
25. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Parabolic Trough
Power Plant System Technology.Online. Available: http://
www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/power plant systems.html.
Accessed:October 13, 2008.
26. Gleick, Peter H. ``Water and Energy.'' Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment, vol. 19, (1994), pp. 267-299.
27. Woods, Mark C., et al. National Energy Technology
Laboratory. Cost and Performance Baselinefor Fossil Energy
Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to
Electricity. Pittsburgh,PA, August 2007.

Responses of Michael E. Webber to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Please describe how the United States can satisfy all
the expected water needs of newly proposed power plants, including
concentrated solar, in arid and semi-arid regions.
Answer. The water needs for new power plants in arid and semi-arid
regions might be met by: 1) using dry-or hybrid wet-dry cooling instead
of traditional water cooling, and 2) using reclaimed water for cooling.
Question 2. Are there any regions in the country that are not
expecting a significant water problem in the next decade?
Answer. Water scarcity and abundance is inherently geographic in
nature, and predicting the future of this resource is fraught with
error. However, generally speaking the Pacific Northwest, upper Midwest
and Northeast are more water-rich than the rest of the nation. Other
regions are prone to droughts or perpetual scarcity.
Question 3. Please describe how policies aimed at climate
mitigation and adaption may affect policies developed in the energy and
water sectors, and, specifically, the energy-water nexus.
Answer. Because water and energy are inherently linked, there are
synergies from conservation. That is, water conservation will
automatically cause energy conservation, and energy conservation will
cause water conservation. Consequently, policies that promote energy
conservation for the same of climate mitigation are also likely to
achieve water conservation. Conversely, policies that promote water
conservation are also likely to achieve energy conservation, which is
good for climate mitigation.
Question 4. Please describe the impact on energy use with stricter
treatment standards for water and wastewater. Are there any energy
related tradeoffs that may occur with stricter treatment standards?
Answer. Water and wastewater treatment require energy. As we
tighten environmental standards for water and wastewater treatment,
there might be energy impacts, in that more advanced treatments
typically require more energy. However, water and wastewater treatment
becomes more efficient each year, and so it's not clear whether the
pace of tightening treatment standards will outpace efficiency gains.
Furthermore, there are many opportunities for reducing energy demands
by the water and wastewater sectors, for example by capturing and using
bio gas produced from anaerobic digestion of sludge and retrofitting
plants with the most efficient pumps and blowers.
Question 5. Please describe the impact of energy policies and
regulations on water demands and its availability.
Answer. Many energy policies affect water demands. The push for
nuclear power, solar CSP, coal-to-liquids, and biofuels might increase
demand for water. The push for wind, solar PV and conservation might
reduce demand for water. These contrasting policy directions will
surely affect water availability, though these effects will inherently
be geographic in nature, depending on where the power or fuels
production takes place.
Question 6. As we further examine the interrelationship between
water and energy, what type of qualitative data do you believe is
needed to better understand the connections to biodiversity and
ecological health?
Answer. Generally, quantitative data would be more valuable than
qualitative data. Getting additional data on water resources to match
the fidelity of data on energy would be very valuable. Right now, data
collections related to water resources and use re sparse, often
inaccurate, and typically out of date.
Question 7. How can we encourage coordination and collaboration of
research, development and policy efforts in the energy-water domain,
with a view to cross-cutting learning?
Answer. There are many opportunities to coordinate and collaborate
on the scientific and R&D aspects of the energy-water nexus. Right now,
no federal agency has clear responsibility for this issue, and
consequently the science is not coordinated. It's likely that OSTP can
play a positive role in coordinating the scientific program of the
energy-water nexus. USGS can play a leading role in collecting,
maintaining and distributing relevant data related. Other agencies such
as NASA can also contribute critical information through its remote
sensing capabilities.
Question 8. Please describe the linkages between energy and water
consumption, as a society becomes more affluent. How do measures to
improve water use efficiency and energy efficiency correlate, as
societies become more affluent?
Answer. As developing societies become more affluent, their energy
and water consumption grow considerably, as we are seeing worldwide
today. The story is more complicated for industrialized societies. As
industrialized societies become more affluent, their overall energy and
water use per unit of economic activity often drops, primarily because
energy-and water-intensive industries (such as manufacturing) get
replaced with different sectors that use less water and energy (such as
finance or other service sectors). In addition, affluent societies are
better able to afford efficient technologies, thereby sparing some
water and energy consumption. However, a counter-trend to the society-
wide change in water and energy use is that as individuals become more
affluent, they tend to consume more energy (to air condition large
homes, for example) and water (because they eat more meat). It's not
always clear whether the growth in individual energy and water
consumption will outpace or match the lessening energy- and water-
intensity of industry. Consequently, the net effect is sometimes
difficult to predict.
Question 9. Please describe how water resource constraints can
become energy constraints.
Answer. Because the power sector (and increasingly, the fuels
production sector) requires so much water, water constraints can become
energy constraints. For example, droughts might limit the availability
of cooling water for power plants. If the water levels in a reservoir
drop below intake pipes to cooling systems, then power plants might be
forced to shut down. In addition, heat waves, which raise the
temperature for surface water sources, might restrict the total output
from power plants if they are bound by thermal pollution limits. That
is, power plants cannot return their cooling water to the source at a
temperature that induces harm to the ecosystem. If the cooling water
starts off at a higher temperature, then the power plant has less
cooling capacity available, and thus might be forced to dial down its
output. In this way, droughts and heat waves introduce water
constraints that can become energy constraints.