EWWTI_PM_Plan_2010-8382P

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Energy and Water in the Western and Texas Interconnects
October 15, 2010
WORK PERFORMED UNDER AGREEMENT
RC-BM-2010
SUBMITTED BY
Sandia National Laboratories
PO Box 5800; MS1377
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-1377
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Vincent Tidwell
Phone: (505)844-6025
Fax: (505)844-8558
E-mail: vctidwe@sandia.gov
SUBMITTED TO
U.S. Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Ray Lopez
Raymond.Lopez@NETL.DOE.GOV
Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear
Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
1
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
2. Risk Management ................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Milestone Log........................................................................................................................................ 5
4. Funding and Costing Profile .................................................................................................................. 9
5. Project Timeline .................................................................................................................................... 9
6. Success Criteria and Decision Points................................................................................................... 14
7. Agreement Statement of Project Objectives ...................................................................................... 15
Appendix A: Quality Assurance Plan ........................................................................................................... 16
Appendix B: Intellectual Property Management Plan ................................................................................ 22
Appendix C: Phase I Scopes of Work........................................................................................................... 26
2
1. Executive Summary
This project is in response to the Research Call to DOE/Federal Laboratories for “Technical Support for
Interconnection-Level Electric Infrastructure Planning, RC-BM-2010” Area of Interest 3: Water/Energy
Nexus. According to the stated needs of the Research Call, three overarching objects are identified:
1. Develop an integrated Energy-Water Decision Support System (EWDSS) that will enable
planners in the Western and Texas Interconnections to analyze the potential implications of water
stress for transmission and resource planning.
2. Pursue the formulation and development of the Energy-Water DSS through a strongly
collaborative process between members of this proposal team and the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC), Western Governors’ Association (WGA), the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT) and their associated stakeholder teams.
3. Exercise the Energy-Water DSS to investigate water stress implications of the transmission
planning scenarios put forward by WECC, WGA, and ERCOT.
The lead laboratory for this project is Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) supported by other national
laboratories, a university, and an industrial research institute. Specific participants include Argonne
National Laboratory (Argonne), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), the University of Texas (UT), and
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Each institution brings a rich portfolio of experience with
respect to water, energy, and the environment.
Beyond efforts toward project management and reporting, the project is organized according to eight
project tasks focused on the development of the EWDSS. The initial foundation for this tool is Sandia
National Laboratories (Sandia) Energy-Power-Water Simulation (EPWSim) model. This existing
framework provides an interactive environment for exploring trade-offs, and “best” alternatives among a
broad list of energy/water options and objectives. The framework currently supports prototype modules
for calculating thermoelectric power demand and related water use; water demand from competing use
sectors; surface and groundwater availability, and; an energy for water calculator. Each of these modules
will be updated and expanded, while additional process modules will be added.
Development of the DSS will be conducted in close cooperation with WECC, WGA, ERCOT and their
stakeholder teams. To enhance transparency and consensus a Collaborative Modeling Team (CMT) will
be assembled to oversee development of the EWDSS. Team membership will include a subgroup of our
interconnection partners. The CMT will meet on a periodic basis with our project modelers to define: 1)
key metrics and decision variable for inclusion in the EWDSS; 2) vet process models; 3) vet data, water
use factors, etc; 4) jointly review the models and conduct calibration analyses; and 5) conduct desired
scenario analyses.
The first module of the EWDSS calculates water withdrawals and consumption for current and projected
thermoelectric power generation. Input to the model are WECC and ERCOT’s transmission planning
results. Water demands are calculated according to power plant capacity, production, type of plant, type
of cooling, and type of emissions control. Accompanying parasitic energy loads imposed by emission
controls and water-conserving cooling technologies are also calculated. Using information on population
growth, Gross State Product and historical water use trends, future water demands are calculated for
3
competing water use sectors (municipal, industrial, agriculture, mining and livestock). The source of the
withdrawal (surface water, groundwater, or non-potable water) is tracked as well as the return flows.
The DSS is also fitted with a water availability model that provides a regional measure of water supply
for surface water, groundwater, and non-potable resources. The model has two principle components,
“wet” and “paper” water. Wet water provides a measure of the physical water available in a basin for use,
while paper water addresses the institutional controls (policies) that define access to the water. The model
combines historical gauge data and other information to project surface and groundwater availability.
The water demand and availability modules are accompanied by additional process models to further
resolve water availability. The first of these is an environmental controls model for identification and
assessment of potential environmental risks associated with growing water use. A climate change
calculator is included for estimating potential changes in water availability. This will include two
components – a climate downscaling model to provide future climate forcing data for the watershed
model and a dynamic large-scale watershed model to project related changes to water availability.
Beyond the scarcity of water, information concerning the potential cost of water for a new withdrawal is
calculated including water rights purchase, value of goods and their water intensity, and cost of treating
non-potable water. Finally, an energy for water calculator is included to calculate electricity demand to
pump, convey, treat (both primary and waste water), and distribute water.
The EWDSS is fitted with an interface that serves as the “dashboard” controlling scenario makeup,
simulation operations, and the rendering of results. This dashboard provides an interactive, real-time
environment comprised of slider bars, buttons and switches for changing key input variables, and real-
time output graphs, tables, and geospatial maps for displaying results. The EWDSS operates on a laptop
computer taking only few seconds to accomplish a simulation. The EWDSS can be distributed to users on
CD or via download from the internet.
A key deliverable from this project is an integrated Energy-Water DSS that will enable planners in the
Western and Texas Interconnections to analyze the potential implications of water stress for transmission
and resource planning. Working with WECC, WGA, and ERCOT and utilizing this Energy-Water DSS a
wide range of transmission planning scenarios will be simulated and evaluated.
While timely accomplishment of these tasks is important and necessary, we are striving for broader
impact. Currently there are no long-range, interconnection-wide transmission plans for the Western and
Texas Interconnections. Consequently, the ability to assess how various infrastructure options balance
reliability, cost, and the environment from an interconnection-wide perspective does not exist. This
project coordinated with the efforts of WECC, WGA, ERCOT and their partners will create a
comprehensive package of stakeholder-vetted, regional planning models, data, and conclusions that are
coordinated at the interconnection-wide level. Cumulatively, this information will substantially improve
the quality and quantity of information available to industry planners, state and federal policymakers and
regulators. Specifically, this project will supplement interconnection-wide transmission planning studies
with information on water availability, which is critical in shaping electricity generation options.
This proposed project represents the first comprehensive, regional analysis of the energy-water nexus.
This is also the first coordinated analysis undertaken by federal and state agencies, the power industry,
NGOs and other interested stakeholders. In this way, the data, models, scenario analyses, and insights
4
derived from this effort will provide a significantly improved body of evidence for policy making at local,
state and federal levels.
2. Risk Management
Risk is inherent to all projects, which if realized has the potential to impact the success of the project. In
efforts to mitigate such risk a set of procedures and processes has been adopted to control all aspects
pertaining to the development and application of the EWDSS. These processes and procedures follow
commonly accepted approaches, such as those given in The Project Management Institute’s A Guide to
the Project Management Book of Knowledge. Processes and procedures specific to the EWDSS project
are specified in Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD) appended to this document (Appendix
A). Accompanying the QAPD is an Intellectual Property Management Plan that addresses potential issues
concerning treatment of intellectual property brought to this project as well as intellectual property
developed as part of this project (Appendix B).
3. Milestone Log
The following are key project milestones. The milestones are organized according to their planned
completion date. A full description of each activity is given in the appended Scope of Work (SOW). Note
that the current list only includes the first phase of activities (5 of 11 tasks). This list will be expanded to
include the other tasks once the SOWs have been vetted and approved by all project participants.
Title: ARRA Reporting

Planned Date: Beginning July 2010 with monthly reports through duration of project
Verification Method: Submitted financial and status reports
Title: Complete Project Scope of Work (SOW): Phase I

Planned Date: September 3, 2010
Verification Method: Submitted SOW
Title: Complete Project Management Plan (PMP)

Planned Date: October 15, 2010
Verification Method: Submitted PMP
Title: Establish project website

Planned Date: November 1, 2010
Verification Method: Operable website
Title: Establish CMT

Verification Method: First CMT meeting
Title: Develop initial water withdrawal/consumption factors and parasitic energy use
factors.
Planned Date: December 1, 2010
Verification Method: Publish data table
5
Title: Complete Project Scope of Work (SOW): Phase II
Verification Method: Submitted SOW
Title: Develop initial water withdrawal/consumption factors and parasitic energy use
factors in Texas
Title: Integrate CCS module into the EPWSim model.

Planned Date: January 7, 2011
Verification Method: Functional model module operating in decision support system
Title: Water institutions tool: Phase I

Planned Date: April 1, 2011
Verification Method: Draft water institutions module operating within decision support system
Title: Plant level estimates of water withdrawal/consumption in Texas

Title: Develop water use needs for CCS for plants in Texas
Title: Biofuel-EPWSim model integration.

Planned Date: May 2, 2011
Title: Plant level estimates of water withdrawal/consumption

Planned Date: June 1, 2011
Title: Link saline sinks to the CCS module

Title: Integrate groundwater data available from Federal sources into EPWSim
Verification Method: New groundwater metrics integrated in decision support system
Title: Integrate non-potable source data beyond that collected by EPRI into EPWSIM
6
Title: Collect non-potable source data for Texas (wastewater, produced water and
saline groundwater)
Title: Integrate water use/consumption data for energy extraction into EPWSim
Title: Update surface water supply metrics for Texas

Title: Complete pilot water supply metrics study with 3-4 western states
Title: Hourly water use calculator

Verification Method: Functional model module
Title: Integrate the non-potable source data into EPWSim

Planned Date: March 1, 2012
Verification Method: Functional non-potable water supply module
Title: Water institutions tool: Phase II

Verification Method: 2nd draft water institutions module operating within decision support system
Title: Climate change and policy implications in the West

Planned Date: March 1, 2012
Title: Water institutions tool in Texas

Title: Hourly water use calculator

Verification Method: Functional model module
Title: Parasitic energy requirements for cooling systems
7
Title: Update EPWSim water demand model with data from Texas
Title: ERCOT Training

Verification Method: Training accomplished
Title: Geographic and climate specific water requirements for energy crops
Title: Geographic locations for energy crops

Title: Estimate water use for energy crops in Texas

Title: Integrate water use/consumption data for gas shale extraction into EPWSim
Title: Integrate groundwater data available from state sources into EPWSim
Planned Date: July 17, 2012
Title: ERCOT Scenario analysis

Planned Date: Delivery dates to be defined by partners through August 1, 2012
Verification Method: Deliver scenario results to interconnection partners
Title: Update EPWSim water demand model with state provided data and additional
data from the USGS surveys
Verification Method: Functional water demand module
Title: Update surface water supply metrics

Verification Method: Functional water supply module
8
Title: Water institutions tool: Final
Verification Method: Final water institutions module operating within decision support system
Title: WECC Training

Verification Method: Training accomplished
Title: Update CCS and carbon sink model with state specific data
Title: Integrate the VHP into EPWSim

Verification Method: VHP operating within the decision support system
Title: Maintain project website

Planned Date: Beginning in October 2010 and running to end of project
Verification Method: Up to date website
Title: WECC Scenario analysis

Planned Date: Delivery dates to be defined by partners through December 24, 2013
Verification Method: Deliver scenario results to interconnection partners
4. Funding and Costing Profile

Given below is the funding and cost profile for the project. Table 1 gives the project funding profile by
participant. Table 2 gives the monthly project spending plan. Budget projections by task are given in the
appended Scope of Work (SOW). Note that the current list only includes the first phase of activities (5 of
11 tasks). These profiles will be expanded to include the other tasks once the SOWs have been vetted and
approved by all project participants.
5. Project Timeline
Given below is the project timeline broken down by each task and subtask. Figure 1 provides this
information as a Gantt chart. Note that the current list only includes the first phase of activities (5 of 11
tasks). The timeline will be expanded to include the other tasks once the SOWs have been vetted and
approved by all project participants.
9
Table 1 - Project Funding Profile
Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Total
Government Government Government Government
Cost Share Cost Share Cost Share Cost Share
Funding Funding Funding Funding
Prime Applicant - Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) $ 523 $ - $ 469 $ - $ 280 $ - $ 1,272 $ -
Team Member 1 - Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) $ 30 $ - $ 15 $ - $ 15 $ - $ 60 $ -
Team Member 2 - Idaho National Laboratory (IDL) $ 105 $ - $ 120 $ - $ 85 $ - $ 310 $ -
Team Member 3 - National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) $ 145 $ - $ 120 $ - $ 15 $ - $ 280 $ -
Team Member 4 - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) $ 15 $ - $ 15 $ - $ 15 $ - $ 45 $ -
Team Member 5 - Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) $ 35 $ - $ 69 $ - $ 15 $ - $ 119 $ -
Team Member 6 - University of Texas at Austin (UT) $ 110 $ - $ 106 $ - $ 8 $ - $ 225 $ -
TOTAL ($s in thousands) $ 963 $ - $ 914 $ - $ 433 $ - $ 2,311 $ -
10
Cost Share % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Table 2 - Project Spending Plans
Table 2.1 - Project Spending Plan BP1 Table 2.2 - Project Spending Plan BP2 Table 2.3 - Project Spending Plan BP3
BP1 - October 2010 - September 2011 BP2 - October 2011 - September 2012 BP3 - October 2012 - September 2013
October $ 80 October $ 76 October $ 36
November $ 80 November $ 76 November $ 36
December $ 80 December $ 76 December $ 36
January $ 80 January $ 76 January $ 36
February $ 80 February $ 76 February $ 36
March $ 80 March $ 76 March $ 36
April $ 80 April $ 76 April $ 36
May $ 80 May $ 76 May $ 36
June $ 80 June $ 76 June $ 36
11
July $ 80 July $ 76 July $ 36
August $ 80 August $ 76 August $ 36
September $ 80 September $ 76 September $ 36
Total ($k in thousands) $ 963 Total ($k in thousands) $ 914 Total ($k in thousands) $ 433
Figure 1. Project Timeline
12
Figure 1. Project Timeline
13
6. Success Criteria and Decision Points
Two overarching success criteria are established for this project: first, development of an integrated
Energy-Water Decision Support System (EWDSS); second, utilization of the EWDSS by WECC and
ERCOT planners in interconnection wide transmission planning. Below are described specific and
measurable metrics which we will use to evaluate project performance against these success criteria.
Additionally, a discussion of the probable advantages and possible disadvantages of these work products
is provided.
The first success criteria involves the development of an integrated Energy-Water DSS that will enable
planners in the Western and Texas Interconnections to analyze the potential implications of water stress
for transmission and resource planning. To achieve this goal the EWDSS must meet several specific
criteria. First, the EWDSS must easily interface with the transmission planning models utilized by WECC
and ERCOT. Specifically, output from the transmission models, representing various planning scenarios,
must form the primary input to the EWDSS. Second, EWDSS results must be sensitive to the
configuration and composition of the future electrical power plant fleet. That is, the EWDSS must be able
to accurately reflect differences in water withdrawals and consumption across different planning scenarios
at the regional and interconnection level. Third, the EWDSS must provide insight into the potential for
water stress stemming from new water demands in the thermoelectric sector. Consistent with the
specifications in Interest Area 3 of the Research Call, the EWDSS must address such issues as growing
water demands in sectors beyond thermoelectric generation; regional water supply for surface water,
groundwater, and non-potable sources; institutional controls on new water appropriations; potential
environmental controls; climate change impacts; water costs; and, energy for water. Fourth, the EWDSS
needs to be accessible to the stakeholders. The EWDSS needs to run as a web server application or
operate on a PC, providing an interactive, real-time environment comprised of slider bars, buttons and
switches for changing key input variables, and real-time output graphs, tables, and geospatial maps for
displaying results.
There are currently no similar tools available for which we can draw technical or economic comparison.
For this reason, an advantage of this effort is to develop the first regional model for assessing the nexus
between energy and water. Beyond potential impacts of growth in the thermoelectric power sector the
EWDSS will also assess potential water demands in other energy sectors including extraction of energy
fuels (e.g., coal, gas from gas shales, oil from oil sands) and biofuel production. As the model addresses
multiple water demand sectors it has the potential for broad use by other western wide planning projects
conducted by WGA, WSWC and others. However, it should be realized that this model will not fully
address all energy-water nexus issues. For example, engineering design of the water supply for specific
future power plants will require more detailed modeling than will be possible with this tool.
The second success criterion is based on the utilization of the EWDSS in WECC and ERCOT planning
efforts. Accomplishment of this goal can be evaluated in a couple of concrete ways. First, scenario
evaluation by WECC and ERCOT include water criteria along with other transmission specific criteria in
scoring the various options. It is also likely that water stress criteria will enter into scenario evaluation in
other qualitative means as well. Second, the EWDSS will generate parasitic energy losses due to cooling
technology choices, carbon capture and sequestration regulation, as well as energy demands due to the
extraction/treatment/distribution of water. Feedback of this information to WECC and ERCOT
transmission planning is an indication of their use of the EWDSS in their scenario planning process.
14
Currently there are no long-range, interconnection-wide transmission plans for the Western and Texas
Interconnections. Consequently, the ability to assess how various infrastructure options balance
reliability, cost, and the environment from an interconnection-wide perspective does not exist. This
project coordinated with the efforts of WECC, WGA, ERCOT and their partners will create a
comprehensive package of stakeholder-vetted, regional planning models, data, and conclusions that are
coordinated at the interconnection-wide level. Cumulatively, this information will substantially improve
the quality and quantity of information available to industry planners, state and federal policymakers and
regulators. Specifically, this project will supplement interconnection-wide transmission planning studies
with information on water availability, which is critical in shaping electricity generation options. This is
also the first coordinated analysis undertaken by federal and state agencies, the power industry, NGOs
and other interested stakeholders. In this way, the data, models, scenario analyses, and insights derived
from this effort will provide a significantly improved body of information for policy making on issues
pertaining to the energy-water nexus. Ultimately, this coordinated planning effort should result in reduced
time and tensions associated with the siting of future power plants. The potential disadvantage of this
effort is that transmission planning has not traditionally considered water in a significant manner. As
such planners will be challenged in ways they are not accustomed and the consideration of water is likely
to complicate the planning process.
7. Agreement Statement of Project Objectives

Attached in Appendix C is the Phase I SOW for the project. Task 1 addresses work necessary to manage
the project, prepare project management documents (Phase II SOWs, Project Management Plan), status
and budget reporting, and maintaining the project website. The remaining 4 tasks address technical
aspects of the project. Note that the current list only includes the first phase of activities (5 of 11 tasks).
This list will be expanded to include the other tasks once the SOWs have been vetted and approved by all
project participants.
15
Appendix A: Quality Assurance Plan
1.0 Purpose
This is the Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD) document for the development and
application of the Energy Water Decision Support System (EWDSS) project. The purpose of the
QAPD is to describe those Quality Assurance practices to be applied to this effort in order to
achieve a sound, systematic approach to Management Assurance and Risk Management.
Key to the successful implementation of this project is the consideration of such items as
configuration management, and acceptance of work products. Treatment of intellectual property
is described in Attachment B. Specifically, this QAP describes how the EWDSS Project
Manager addresses and manages these concerns. Since standard SNL practices will apply to all
other activities, detailed elaboration of these topics is not provided in this document.
In addition to the activities described in section 11 of this document DOE Quality Assurance
requirements will be met topically, as applicable to the EWDSS effort, through implementation
of the matrix of corporate procedures described in Attachment 1 of the corporate QAP.
(WFS1043674).
Specifically, this QAPD describes how the EWDSS project team ensures that the outcomes of
this project fully meet performance requirements and expectations relative to DOE Order
414.1C, Quality Assurance. It is not intended to impose additional procedural or compliance
requirements beyond the respective institutional processes of the National Laboratories, EPRI
and University of Texas, providing support to the EWDSS project team. The Quality Assurance
approach will ensure the development and application of the EWDSS project as follows:
Traceable: Understanding the source and justification of data and other inputs that
generate conclusions by means of recorded identification.
Transparent: Documented in sufficient detail as to purpose, method, assumptions,

inputs, conclusions, references, and units, such that a person technically qualified in the
subject can understand the documents and be able to follow the decision points, logic,
calculations, and operations that produced results without recourse to the originator.
Reviewed: Ensuring that technical, quality, and managerial reviews are performed and
comments are resolved.
Reproducible: Documenting the development of an analysis or model in sufficient detail

such that an individual technically qualified in the subject can produce a comparable
analysis without recourse to the originator.
Retrievable: Assuring that all data, models, papers (including informal documents such
as white papers and position papers) or other documentary materials, regardless of
physical form or characteristics, created by the EWDSS project Team is available
through the SNL SharePoint site and external website.
16
2.0 Statement of Applicability
The document applies to all Members of Workforce participating in the performance, directly or
indirectly, of the Research Call to DOE/Federal Laboratories for “Technical Support for
Interconnection-Level Electric Infrastructure Planning, RC-BM-2010” Area of Interest 3:
Water/Energy Nexus. Requirements of the QAP are also applicable to Sandia's subcontractors
and project partners, to the extent that they flow down in the contract(s) or project Statement(s)
of Work. The Manager (or a delegated representative) of Department 06926, must approve
requests for exceptions to, or exemptions from, any of the requirements of this QAP.
3.0 Graded Approach

All aspects of lifecycle project performance have been considered by the Manager of Department
06926. With the additional controls described in section 11 of this document, the application of
standard SNL procedures and practices results in adequate mitigation of inherent project risks.
The grading approach used in arriving at this conclusion is described in CG100.6.1, Manage
Risks, and is documented in section 12 of this QAP.
17
4.0 Organization
Role Project Responsibility

Program Area Director ME100.4.1, Engage the Customer during “Perform
Work” activities
06350 Senior Manager Risk Management and customer relations; Baseline
Change Proposal review and approval
06926 Manager Work Planning and Controls; Project Manager selection
and performance management; identification and
provision of job, function, organization and required
contractor training; monthly Management Assurance
review and determine grading approach.
Project Manager Project managers have responsibility and accountability
for managing projects, including processes to:
• Initiate new projects.
• Ensure proper funding of projects.
• Structure projects to provide useful reporting
information.
• Ensure that projects have accurate and current
information.
• Close a project when the project is completed
• Implement and maintain configuration control of
project performance documents
• Sandia Delegated Representative role
Procurement (Sandia Contracting Also called the Buyer, the SCR is the procurement
Representative) professional who acts to fulfill the Requester's
requirement. Often working in consultation with the
Requester, the SCR obtains quotations, negotiates and
awards contracts, and administers contracts after awards
have been made. Contractor requests for changes to
approved contract performance schedules and milestones
must be approved by the SCR.
Center Office Business Support Cost estimating, Baseline Change Control, fulfillment of
prime contract reporting requirements, FIN100.2.PLAN.6
Manage Project Resources
SNL Tech Staff Requirements Definition, Sandia Delegated
Representative for contractor interface, receipt and
acceptance of goods and services on behalf of SNL.
18
5.0 Training
SBS701, Preparing for Contract Placement for Requestors, is required for requesters and Sandia
delegated representatives. The Department 06926 Manager will determine whether the course
should be added to the training matrix of additional personnel. Training assignments and status
monitoring are accomplished in accordance with corporate training processes. Sandia’s partners
are highly qualified staff, with substantial expertise and institutional training requirements. The
following courses will be assigned initially to the training folder of the Project Manager. Upon
completion of the training, the Project Manager and Department Manager will consider the
benefits of assigning such training to other team members.
• SQE120, Self-Assessment Instrument for Software Quality Project Team Training, provides
an overview of the Self-assessment Instrument for Sandia’s Provide Quality Software
corporate procedure (IM100.3.5).
• SQE301, Software Quality Practice Workshop – Project Management, is designed to
introduce DOE Order 414.1C and Sandia Software Quality Assurance Plan (SSQAP)
principles to software development project team members.
6.0 Quality Improvement

Quality improvement is an ongoing, continuous process. Formal and/or informal assessments
and feedback are used to prevent quality problems and verify conformance.
7.0 Documents and Records
Procedures specific to the EWDSS project are not required. Consistent with IM100.2.2, Control
of Records, project documents and records, including email, will be stored in the designated
SharePoint site according to the file structure established by the Project Manager. Project
personnel have Add/Edit privileges, and do not have Delete privileges. Non-project personnel
have View privileges only. Project documents and records are stored under version control to
assure that a change log (when a change was made, who made it, what was changed) exists.
Immediate email notification is provided to the Project Manager and Department Manager when
a configuration item (QAP, Project Plan, Project Baseline, or Derived Project Requirements) is
revised. If the change was incorrect, the Project Manager or Department Manager will authorize
the Site Administrator (Full Control privileges) to revert to the prior document version.
8.0 Work Processes

Scientific and technical analyses and reviews, and modeling/simulation activities, are conducted
in accordance with the established practices of each respective participant’s institution. The
scope and documentation detail is commensurate with the complexity and importance of the
work, the skills required to perform the work, the consequences of quality problems in the
product, or process.
19
Line management and workers cooperate to identify processes that can be improved based on
feedback prior to and following implementation of the work process.
Management solicits input from workers in the development of work processes and
communicates an expectation of worker accountability for quality in the performance of work.
9.0 Design
There are no specific design processes applicable to this effort.
10.0 Procurement
There are no specific Procurement or Logistics processes applicable to this effort.
11.0 Inspection and Acceptance Testing

Each National Laboratory, the University of Texas and EPRI, in support of this effort utilizes
highly skilled and experienced scientific and technical personnel for the conduct of its efforts.
• Internal institutional processes are used to identify qualified personnel.

• Commensurate with risk, internal institutional peer review processes are utilized to verify the
accuracy, completeness and reliability of the data/results and will be documented in project
SharePoint site including objective evidence of the peer review.
• The SOWs fix the requirements for each phase of the project and participant.
• Data deliverables shall include data sources and limitations with associated documentation.
• Model development shall follow best practices guidelines to ensure model transparency
considering the level of confidence appropriate for the models intended use. Software
configuration management is required, fixing each version of the model and documenting the
changes and date made to each subsequent version.
• Sandia National Laboratories is explicitly responsible for managing task assignments and
deliverable acceptance.
• Deliverables to Sandia shall include a transmittal letter or email attesting to having followed
institutional work process in the execution of the deliverable.
• Derive defined requirements with partners. Negotiate acceptance criteria with partners based
upon the defined requirements.
12.0 Management Assessment

Relative to CG100.6.1 Manage Risks, the following determination applies to the EWDSS
project.
Risk Category Mission Execution, Loss of Customer, public confidence
20
Likelihood Medium
Consequence High
o Adverse impact on Sandia’s programmatic performance

or the achievement of corporate strategic or operational
objectives
o Adverse public opinion – moderate interest, limited PR

problems of short duration (days)
Inherent Risk Level High (Likelihood * Consequence)
Residual Risk Level Low: Adverse public opinion with short-term local negative
publicity or embarrassment
Risk Control Project Performance Baseline Change Control.
Performance Measures Performance milestones will be individually identified and tracked

in the corporate project management system.
Periodic project performance reviews (ME100.3.2 Manage Projects Throughout Their Lifecycle,
Monitor/Control activity) occur as part of Sandia’s normal Management Assurance processes.
Project performance reviews are tentatively scheduled monthly at the Department Manager and
Center Director levels, and quarterly at the SMU program level. Such reviews serve as partial
input to the Management Assurance Review process documented in CG100.6.16 Conduct
Management Reviews.
13.0 Independent Assessment

Independent assessments of ARRA activities are conducted by both internal and external
organizations and agencies. The extent and frequency of these assessments are based upon risk,
results of previous assessments, and contractual requirements. The Manager of Department
06926 is responsible for insuring that corrective actions are taken on all observations and
findings and for keeping the Senior Manager (06350) and Center Director (06900) informed of
the results of all assessment
21
Appendix B: Intellectual Property Management Plan
September 20, 2010
Introduction
The principal goals of this intellectual property (IP) management plan for the Technical Support for
Interconnection-Level Electric Infrastructure Planning: Water/Energy Nexus include:
• Develop an integrated Energy-Water Decision Support System (EWDSS) that will enable
planners in the Western and Texas Interconnections to analyze the potential implications of
water stress for transmission and resource planning;
• Pursue the formulation and development of the EWDSS through a strongly collaborative
process between members of this proposal team and the Western Electricity Coordinating
Council (WECC), Western Governors’ Association (WGA), the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT) and their associated stakeholder teams, and
• Exercise the EWDSS to investigate water stress implications of the transmission planning
scenarios put forward by WECC, WGA, and ERCOT.
EWDSS members include national laboratories, a university, and an industrial research institute.
Definitions
1. “EWDSS” means the funding for EWDSS awarded by DOE to SNL under Contract No. DE-ACO4-
94AL85000.
2. “EWDSS Invention” means an invention conceived or first actually reduced to practice under
EWDSS Funding.
3. “EWDSS IP” means EWDSS Inventions, mask works, trademarks and copyrighted works that arise
under EWDSS Funding.
4. “Government” means the Federal Government of the United States.
5. “Integrated EWDSS IP” means the bundle of EWDSS IP developed under the EWDSS Program.
Each contributor’s IP piece is solely owned and the integrated IP bundle will be jointly owned but
maintained and controlled by SNL.
6. “Discloser” means a EWDSS member who discloses Proprietary Information.
7. “Recipient” refers to the party or parties receiving Proprietary Information.
8. “Non-commercial license” refers to any license that does not in some sense involve commerce or
does not have a commercial objective or emphasis.
Information Sharing
It is the intention of the EWDSS that the fruits of its research be widely and promptly disseminated, with
a goal of maximizing the impact of the research and its long-term benefit to the U.S. and to society. Even
in those situations in which protection of EWDSS IP is desirable, e.g., to induce further commercial
development, or is required under specific funding obligations, such IP is also expected to be widely and
promptly disseminated for the public good.
22
Conflict of Interest
EWDSS team members will have safeguards in place to manage personal and organizational
conflicts of interest that may arise from the licensing of EWDSS IP.
Ownership of Inventions
The following statutes governing disposition of title to new inventions under agreements of the U.S.
Department of Energy (“DOE”) and its contractors will apply to inventions made under DOE Funding:
a) The Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. 200 et seq., requires that universities, non-profits and small
businesses who are participating under a funding agreement (as defined in the Bayh-Dole Act)
will have the option to retain title to their own employees’ inventions.
b) The Federal Non Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5908, will
govern disposition of title for all other parties, regardless of whether they receive Government
funding, and it requires that the Government obtains title to new inventions unless a waiver is
granted.
c) Inventions made by employees of ANL, INL, NREL, PNNL and Sandia will be subject to the
Management and Operating (M&O) contract terms and conditions with respect to ownership of
inventions made by laboratory employees. The M&O contract generally provides that the
laboratory has the right to elect to retain title to inventions made by their laboratory employees.
d) The Copyright Act (17 USC 200 et. Seq.) vests ownership of works to the author of those works.
Ownership to works authored or co-authored by employees, contractors, faculty, and/or students
of the parties to this MOU vests in the authoring entity.
Protection of EWDSS IP
Each EWDSS member will protect its EWDSS IP according to its standard practices and is responsible
for the costs of any domestic and foreign protection that it chooses to pursue at its sole discretion. DOE
will have the right to protect EWDSS IP if the owner institution does not wish to do so and may to allow
other EWDSS members to protect the EWDSS IP in appropriate situations.
Each EWDSS member shall abide by the export control laws and regulations of the United States
Department of Commerce and other United States' governmental agencies relating to the export of
technology. Failure to obtain an export control license or other authority from the government may result
in criminal liability under U.S. laws.
When a EWDSS member discloses Proprietary Information, that Proprietary Information shall be protected
in accordance with the terms of this Agreement by the Recipient of that Proprietary Information. Recipient
shall not disclose Proprietary Information to any third party without the prior written approval of the
Discloser. Recipient shall limit access to Proprietary Information to such of its employees and contractors
who are obligated to treat the same as proprietary and in the same manner and equivalent extent as provided
herein with regard to confidentiality and nondisclosure. Recipient shall not remove the proprietary marking
from any of the Discloser’s Proprietary Information.
23
IP Management
SNL Tech Transfer will provide a simplified means for industry to negotiate licenses to the Integrated
EWDSS IP and other agreements that may be required in support of the EWDSS Program (e.g., CRADA,
WFO, bailment, option) by centralizing these activities with SNL.
Other activities with third parties relating to access to EWDSS IP (e.g., NDAs, Material Transfer
Agreements, etc.) will be coordinated through SNL Tech Transfer.
Licensing of DOE IP
EWDSS (through SNL) will have the sole authority to license the integrated EWDSS IP. Each EWDSS
member is granted a non-exclusive license for its own use, without the right to sublicense, in the
integrated EWDSS IP.
Each EWDSS member has the authority to license the EWDSS IP that it creates in accordance with that
EWDSS member’s own policies and is granted a non-exclusive license for its own use, without the right
to sublicense, in all EWDSS IP created by the other EWDSS members. Each EWDSS member also
grants to EWDSS (SNL) a nonexclusive license, with the right to sublicense, in each EWDSS member’s
EWDSS IP.
If a EWDSS member contributes pre-existing IP for the benefit of EWDSS, such IP remains owned by
the contributing member and the contributing member has no obligation to license such IP to EWDSS or
any of the EWDSS members. Non-commercial licenses can be distributed to Federal, State, local, or
regional government or not-for-profit entities at no cost.
Credible business plans shall be required for all commercial licensing of EWDSS IP, which will be on a
non-exclusive basis. Before executing any license agreement for a field of use, the licensing member
institution will evaluate the capabilities of the potential commercial licensee, and the company must
demonstrate that it has the expertise and capital needed to further the development of the technology and
successfully bring the technology to market in the field(s) of use in which a license would be granted.
EWDSS IP will be licensed to companies only in the fields of use (FOU) in which the company is capable
and committed to bringing the technology to market, saving other FOUs for additional licensees.
Licensing Revenue Allocations

Each EWDSS member institution that is an owner of EWDSS IP included in the integrated EWDSS IP
licensed by SNL is entitled to a percentage of any royalties or other income from such licenses. Licensing
income from each such license will be distributed annually as follows (“EWDSS Distribution”):
a) A standard 15% administrative fee will go to SNL to offset the cost of license administration;
b) Next, licensing income is used to reimburse EWDSS IP owners for patent expenses if their
patent expenses exceed any patent reimbursement fees negotiated into the license, and
received from licensee by SNL. All of license income after the above expenses will be
distributed to each EWDSS IP owner in accordance with a formula agreed to by a majority of
the EWDSS Commercialization Council.
24
For the licenses to the integrated EWDSS IP, licensing income includes fees (such as license
issue fees, license maintenance or milestone fees), and royalties, but does not include
reimbursement of negotiated patent fees.
Reporting to DOE
Each member institution shall report its inventions to DOE in accordance with the prime contract. In
addition, each member institution shall disclose promptly to DOE, through SNL Tech Transfer, all
EWDSS inventions, software, and tangible research products resulting from EWDSS Funding.
Acceptance:
Member Institution: __________________________________
By: __________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: _________________________________
Date: _________________________________
SANDIA CORPORATION:
_______________________________
Harold S. Morgan
Senior Manager, Industrial Partnerships and Strategy
Date: _____________________________
25
Appendix C: Phase I Scopes of Work
Task 1: Project Management

PURPOSE: Appropriate attention to project management is paramount to project success. This
task addresses necessary efforts toward project coordination, communication, contracting, and
resource tracking.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This task is necessary to maintain strong

communication and coordination between members of the project team, DOE, and our
interconnection partners. Significant efforts are planned in working with our interconnection
partners to direct construction of the decision support system, propose the data that populates the
system, and to participate and direct the accompanying analysis.
TASK BUDGET: $407K

Note that indirect costs charged by each institution cover basic overhead elements such as office
space, utilities, security, upper management, taxes and a variety of other general operational
expenses that support the institution as a whole. Cost elements reported here support project
management including, planning, communication, and coordination activities that pertain
directly to this project; that is, the labor expended by our project participants on tasks that
generally benefit the entire project (i.e., conference calls, meetings, preparing planning
documents).
Subtask 1.1: Scope of Work and Management Plan.

PROPOSED WORK: The first activity will include the preparation of a project Scope of Work
and Project Management Plan according to the instructions in Attachments A and B, respectively
of the RFP. The approach to project management will follow the basic principles set forth in the
Project Managements Institute’s “A Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge.” In
assembling the Project Management Plan we will work with our project partners to address
issues of intellectual property, quality assurance, configuration management, etc. to facilitate
communication and coordination of efforts throughout the duration of the project. Another key
element on the PMP will be a clear process of review and acceptance for the products developed
through this project.
Deliverable 1.1.1: Complete Project Scope of Work (SOW): Phase I

Responsible Partner: Sandia National Laboratories
Start Date July 12, 2010
End Date: September 3, 2010
Budget: $20K
26
Deliverable 1.1.2: Complete Project Management Plan (PMP)
Start Date: September 1, 2010
End Date: October 15, 2010
Budget: $15K
Deliverable 1.1.3: Complete Project Scope of Work (SOW): Phase II

Start Date: November 1, 2010
End Date: December 15, 2010
Budget: $7K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Documents developed under this subtask

will clearly define the work to be accomplished, deliverables, tasks, budget and the manner in
which the work will be done. These documents will also provide a basis for scheduling work
activities and coordinating deliverables with the needs of the Interconnection planning process.
Subtask 1.2: Project Coordination.

PROPOSED WORK: Vincent Tidwell of Sandia will serve as overall Contact Principal
Investigator/Project Coordinator for research under this proposal; however, multiple principal
investigators (PIs) will collaborate to plan and conduct the proposed research. This collaboration
will include Argonne PI John Gasper, EPRI PI Robert Goldstein, NREL PI Jordan Macknick,
INL PI Gerald Sehlke, PNNL PI Mark Wigmosta and UT PI Michael Webber. Project
Coordinator and PI responsibilities include directing, coordinating and conducting research for
specific projects under this proposal, jointly reporting to the DOE program manager (frequency
and manner of reporting to be set by DOE), and assuring administrative requirements are met.
Project coordination across this team will be pursued through periodic (at a minimum monthly)
web conferences among all project participants augmented by periodic face-to-face meetings.
The WGA, WECC, and ERCOT will be apprised of project team coordination and engaged as
appropriate in project team meetings. In addition, the project team will ensure communication
with project partners through active representation at pertinent DOE, WECC, WGA, ERCOT,
and stakeholder meetings. Coordination between this project team and DOE project management
will be handled through periodic face-to-face meetings and conference calls as required by DOE.
To enhance project coordination a Collaborative Modeling Team (CMT) will be assembled to

oversee development of the Energy Water DSS. Team membership will involve a self-selection
process of participants from the WECC, WGA, and ERCOT planning teams. The CMT may also
include willing experts from other organizations as appropriate. The CMT will meet on a
periodic basis with our project modelers to define: 1) key metrics and decision variables for
inclusion in the DSS; 2) vet process models; 3) vet data, water use factors, etc; 4) jointly review
27
the models and conduct calibration analyses; and 5) conduct desired scenario analyses. Meetings
will largely be handled through web conferencing with occasional face-to-face meetings
coordinated with other project events. Sandia has significant experience in developing models
within the context of a CMT, which improves model transparency and consensus in the model
and the results rendered.1-5
Sandia and the project team will also coordinate with WGA, WECC, and ERCOT in any public
outreach, stakeholder engagement, or board review and approval as necessary for those
organizations. For instance, WGA must ensure that work products and reports are approved by
its ‘Staff Council’, the representatives of 19 member governors who serve as the board for
WGA. WGA is planning broader stakeholder engagement, including from the electricity
industry, water management community, and non-governmental organizations in this project.
Sandia and the project team will participate in these efforts as appropriate.
Assumptions concerning the level of effort toward project coordination are as follows. Each
project participant is expected to attend two 2-hour conference calls a month (on average) and
attend one 2-day face-to-face meeting each year. University of Texas expenses are lower because
of their lower overhead rate. In addition the Sandia Principal Investigator will attend two
additional 2-day meetings a year.
Deliverable 1.2.1: Project Coordination

Responsible Partner: All partners will participate in project meetings, planning exercises, etc.
This activity will proceed throughout the full duration of the project.
Start Date: July 1, 2010
Budget:
Partner Sandia Argonne EPRI NREL INL PNNL UT
$/yr 25K 15K 15K 15K 15K 15K 8.3K
Deliverable 1.2.2: Establish CMT

End Date: November 1, 2010
Budget: Captured in Project Coordination budget
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This subtask supports efforts toward

broad communication and technical project coordination across all participants. The CMT
provides an opportunity for WECC, WGA, WSWC, and ERCOT staff to participate in model
development and scenario testing with the purpose of enhancing transparency and dialogue.
28
Subtask 1.3: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Reporting
PROPOSED WORK: Sandia acknowledges the modification of its prime contract to
incorporate ARRA-specific requirements, specifically:
• DOE Clause H-999, Special Provisions Relating to Work Funded under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (APR 2009)
• DOE Clause B-9999, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Work Values
• FAR 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (MAR 2009)
• FAR 52.204-11, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – Reporting Requirements
(MAR 2009)
• FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records – Negotiation (Alt I) (MAR 2009)
• FAR 52.225-21, Required Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Goods – Buy
American Act – Construction Materials (MAR 2009).
In addition to the foregoing requirements, Sandia receives periodic ARRA reporting guidance
updates from the DOE, posted at
http://www.energy.gov/recovery/ARRA_Reporting_Requirements.htm. Monthly reporting is
filed by Sandia using Recipient DUNS Number 007113228. Sandia will be responsible for
ARRA reporting except in terms of financials, which will be the responsibility of each project
participant under separate contract to DOE.
Deliverable 1.3.1: ARRA Reporting

Responsible Partner: All laboratory partners and EPRI will be responsible for reporting
financials directly to DOE. UT will be reported through Sandia. As the
Lead Laboratory, SNL will report overall project status. This activity will
proceed throughout the full duration of the project.
Start Date: Monthly reporting beginning July 2010.
Budget: Budget for activity is captured in laboratory overhead.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This reporting is a Federal requirement.
Subtask 1.4: Project Website.

PROPOSED WORK: A project website will be developed and maintained throughout the
duration of the project. The website will serve as an internal file share and configuration
management for project partners as well as a port for external communication. The internal file
share will be password protected providing a place where participants can share documents and
models subject to configuration managed protocols. The external public website will include a
description of the effort, contact personnel, approved scopes of work, project status,
presentations, and documents completed under the project. This external site will be linked to
29
DOE Office of Electricity’s interconnection –wide planning website as well as our
interconnection partner’s websites.
Deliverable 1.4.1: Establish project website

End Date: Operable on November 1, 2010
Budget: $10K
Deliverable 1.4.1: Maintain project website

Start Date: October 4, 2010
Budget: $30K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: The website will provide a convenient

medium for exchanging data and information across all project partners. The external website
will communicate project efforts and results to those outside the planning team.
References
1. Tidwell, V.C. and Cors van den Brink, 2008, Cooperative modeling: Linking science,
communication and ground water planning, Ground Water, 46(2), 174-182.
2. Cockerill, K.C., V.C. Tidwell, H. Passell, and L. Malczynski, 2007, Collaborative
Modeling Lessons for Environmental Management, Environmental Practice, 9(1), 28-41.
3. Cockerill, K.C., H. Passell, and V.C. Tidwell, V.C., April 2006, Cooperative modeling:
Building bridges between science and the public, Journal of American Water Resources
Association, 457-471.
4. Tidwell, V.C., H.D. Passell, S.H. Conrad, and R.P. Thomas, System dynamics modeling
for community-based water planning: An application to the Middle Rio Grande, Journal
of Aquatic Sciences, 66,357-372, 2004.
5. Cockerill, Kristan, Vincent Tidwell, and Howard Passell. Assessing Public Perceptions of
Computer-Based Models. Environmental Management, 34(5): 609-619, 2004.
30
Task 2: Water Withdrawal and Consumption Calculator for
Current and Planned Electric Power Generation
PURPOSE: The purpose of this model is to calculate water withdrawal and consumption at the
power plant level across the Western and Texas Interconnections. Input to the water use
calculator will be the output of WECC’s and ERCOT’s transmission planning models;
specifically, the transmission planning models will define the full operational characteristics of
both existing and future power plants, including capacity, production, type of plant, type of
cooling, and type of emissions controls. The hourly level data from the transmission planning
models along with local climate information will be used by this calculator to determine the
hourly water withdrawal and consumption as well as parasitic energy demands imposed by
emission controls and water-conserving cooling technologies. While the hourly power plant-
level data will be available for use, calculator output will also be aggregated to an appropriate
spatial and temporal resolution for use in the Energy Water Decision Support System (EWDSS).
Calculated parasitic energy loads will be passed back to WECC and ERCOT for use in their
transmission modeling as necessary.
Ultimately, each of the deliverables developed under this task will be integrated with
deliverables from all other project tasks into a EWDSS. The DSS will be fitted with an interface
that allows one to combine information from the various models to explore the wide range of
dimensions important to the Energy-Water nexus. Output from the EWDSS will form the basis
for the interconnection wide planning.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This calculator will simulate hourly

water withdrawal and consumption for current and planned electric power generation (according
to individual plants) based on the scenarios developed by WECC and ERCOT. These analyses
will consider both potential impacts of carbon capture and sequestration and use of alternative
power plant cooling strategies. In particular, parasitic energy loss due to CCS and
implementation of hybrid or dry cooling technologies will be estimated and use of this data
coordinated through WECC and ERCOT. Ultimately, future thermoelectric water use scenarios
can be compared in terms of total water withdrawal and consumption. Additionally, these
estimates can be compared against other water use demands and water availability metrics to
assess suitability of different locations for siting of new power plants.
TASK BUDGET: $246K
Subtask 2.1: Water Withdrawal and Consumption and Parasitic Energy Factors.
CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: To date there have been a number of efforts to
estimate and consolidate water withdrawal and water consumption factors based on boiler type
and cooling technology for both renewable and conventional technologies.1,2,3 Some efforts base
reported numbers on estimated national averages, others use data from specific utilities, and
others use a combination of both. None of these reports, however, provide data comprehensive
enough to account for all the potential technologies to be deployed in the study region. Still,
various studies have utilized these existing factors to estimate water withdrawals and
consumption at a regional level across the US assuming various future power generation
scenarios.4-6 These modeling frameworks, however, are highly aggregated (10-13 regions on a
31
national scale), and are not directly applicable to specific planning processes and analyses.
Planning activities require technology- and climate-specific water use factors, which as of yet
have not been developed for the study region. Power plant-specific data are required to
adequately assess regional water impacts, which are very localized by nature. To date, no
comprehensive power-plant specific data are available for the study region. The National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) has developed a database of coal facilities in the U.S. that
reports water usage in the year 2005.7 This previous work on coal facilities will be leveraged in
the current project, yet further research is required to incorporate other technologies.
NEED: Currently there are no comprehensive water usage estimates for the electricity sector on
a power plant-specific scale, nor are there hourly estimates of these facilities’ water use. Hourly
power plant-specific data, however, is required to accurately project water demands as well as
grid functioning in a transmission planning process.
PROPOSED WORK: This subtask supports the development of a model to calculate water
withdrawal and consumption at the power plant level. Estimates will leverage work identifying
the water use requirements of power plants for a variety of fuel types, generation technologies,
and cooling types, which is more comprehensive and process-detailed than existing research.6,8-10
Both emerging and mature technologies will be considered. The primary focus of this effort will
be to develop water use factors associated with individual power plant specifications that are
projected to be built.11 Further refinement of water use factors will be needed to address the
variation in power plant efficiencies associated with differences in microclimates (e.g., elevation,
temperature, humidity). Once plant-specific factors have been developed, hourly estimates of
water consumption and withdrawal can be calculated through integration with the appropriate
parameters of the transmission planning models.
Working through the CMT, efforts will be made to vet the calculated water demands for existing
power plants with data available from state water managers and utility operators. Such analysis
at a power plant level has not been accomplished to date.
Another factor affecting power plant efficiencies relates to the cooling system employed. Dry
cooling and hybrid cooling systems can be used to mitigate water requirements, but can impose
additional energy requirements.12-13 The focus of this particular activity will be to identify and
evaluate these parasitic energy requirements and associated reduced efficiencies related to choice
of cooling technology. This effort will leverage existing work on renewables being conducted
by NREL and will also require collaboration with the National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL) and other institutions to develop parasitic requirements for conventional technologies.14
Ultimately the water withdrawal/consumption factors along with parasitic energy losses will be
consolidated according to fuel type, power plant technology (e.g. Rankine cycle, Brayton cycle
or combined cycle, etc.), and cooling technology, then integrated into the decision support
system to estimate water demands for the electric sector with spatial and temporal resolution.
NREL will lead the effort to collect and integrate data from the Western Interconnection region
while the University of Texas will lead efforts within the ERCOT region. Efforts between NREL
and the University of Texas will be coordinated and data shared as appropriate.
32
Deliverable 2.1.1: Develop initial water withdrawal/consumption factors and parasitic energy
use factors.
Responsible Partner: NREL
Start date: October 1, 2010
End date: December 1, 2010
Budget: $30K
Deliverable 2.1.2: Plant level estimates of water withdrawal/consumption

Start date: November 1, 2010
End date: June 1, 2011
Budget: $70K
Deliverable 2.1.3: Hourly water use calculator
Start date: February 1, 2011
End date: November 30, 2011
Budget: $41K
Deliverable 2.1.4: Parasitic energy requirements for cooling systems

Responsible Partner: NREL (with NETL)
Start date: December 1, 2011
End date: May 1, 2012
Budget: $50K
Deliverable 2.1.5: Develop initial water withdrawal/consumption factors and parasitic energy
use factors in Texas
Responsible Partner: UT
Budget: $10K
Deliverable 2.1.6: Plant level estimates of water withdrawal/consumption in Texas

Start Date: December 1, 2010
End Date: April 1, 2011
Budget: $10K
Deliverable 2.1.7: Hourly water use calculator

Start Date: May 2, 2011
Schedule: April 2, 2012
Budget: $10K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Accurate electric sector water

withdrawal and consumption factors, on a plant-specific basis and available in hourly intervals,
33
are an integral component of energy-water planning. These water use factors, and associated
plant efficiencies, can vary significantly according to climatic conditions and cooling
technologies employed. This effort will provide the most comprehensive assessment to date of
plant-specific water use factors to the interconnection planners.
Subtask 2.2: Impacts of Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: The most detailed analysis of Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) and its effects on water withdrawal and consumption was performed by the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).14-15 These analyses use a 1st order approach
derived from a prior NETL study of the cost and performance impacts associated with CCS
technologies on power plants.16 Water consumption and withdrawal factors, gallons used per
energy generated on a net generation basis, from the detailed study were developed for
subcritical, supercritical and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants. Carbon
capture technologies require auxiliary power also termed “parasitic” load, which lowers the net
exported power. This analysis assumed that all new additions include carbon capture
technologies and that these new builds will meet the required capacity by accounting for their
own parasitic load. Additionally, the existing plants that will be retrofitted with carbon capture
technologies are de-rated due to the parasitic load. These studies looked at three possible
scenarios to account for this capacity loss. These analyses were performed on a 13-NERC
regional basis (including 3 WECC subregions) spanning the entire US. Analyses were based on
spreadsheet calculations on 5-year increments out to 2030.
Currently there is a joint effort between Sandia, NETL and DOE Office of Policy and
International Affairs (OPIA) to build upon and expand these previous efforts. A key aspect of
this collaborative project is estimation of CCS impacts at the power plant level (rather than
regional), thus providing a much more accurate depiction of potential increased water demands.
Specifically, efforts are being made to identify which plants are likely to be retrofitted for CCS
under different carbon capture policies, which plants are likely to close, and which might operate
without capture (subject to different potential emissions policies). Water withdrawal and
consumption factors as well as parasitic energy loss factors will be updated with the best and
most up-to-date data available.
Sandia working with NETL have investigated the potential of deep saline formations as sinks for
captured carbon.17-18 This analysis is working to link specific plants likely to employ CCS with
deep saline aquifers. This effort also estimates the volume of saline water to be produced and
potential costs of treating the water for various potable uses. The UT team has also created a
model to estimate grid-wide carbon emissions, parasitic losses, and dispatch effects of CCS in
ERCOT,19 and will build on that model to include water use as well.
NEED: The need here is simply to integrate this existing work into the EPWSim model (see
Task 3 for a description of this model). We also expect that new data and or state-specific
information are likely to arise during the course of this work, in which case we will make the
necessary improvements to the model.
34
PROPOSED WORK: There are three basic tasks associated with this effort. First, the joint
Sandia, NETL, OPIA model will be integrated into EPWSim. Second, the Sandia-NETL saline
sinks model will be integrated. Finally, updates to the CCS and saline sinks model will be made
as new data or state-specific data become available. Sandia will lead the effort to collect and
integrate data from the western Interconnection region while the University of Texas will lead
efforts within the ERCOT region.
Deliverable 2.2.1: Integrate CCS module into the EPWSim model.

End Date: January 7, 2011
Budget: $5K
Deliverable 2.2.2: Link saline sinks to the CCS module

Start Date: May 2, 2011
End Date: June 1, 2011
Budget: $5K
Deliverable 2.2.3: Update CCS and carbon sink model with state specific data
Start Date: July 1, 2011
End Date: July 31, 2013
Budget: $5K
Deliverable 2.2.4: Develop water use needs for CCS for plants in Texas
Budget: $10K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Carbon capture and sequestration has the

potential to impose significant increases in water withdrawal and consumption in the
thermoelectric industry. Both direct and indirect (through parasitic energy losses) impacts must
be considered for meaningful energy-water planning. This set of activities will provide the best
available estimates of CCS water use to the interconnection planners.
References
1. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Report to Congress: concentrating solar power
commercial application study: reducing water consumption of concentrating solar power
electricity generation. Provides a summary of water use estimates for CSP technology
configurations.
2. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2006. Report to Congress: Energy demands on water
resources. Provides generic water use estimates fossil and renewable generation
technologies.
35
3. Fthenakis V. and Kim H. C. 2006. Life Cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity
generation,. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(7),2039-2048. Provides
estimates from previous studies of water use in fossil and renewable generation
technologies.
4. Feeley, T.J., T.J. Skone, G.J. Stiegel, A McNemar, M. Nemeth, B. Schimmoller, J.T.
Murphy, L. Manfredo, 2007, Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power
industry. Energy, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2007.08.007. Provides estimates of water
use/consumption for fossil based electricity generation.
5. Ongoing project: Jordan Macknick at NREL is managing a project in conjunction with
Brookhaven National Laboratory, funded through the DOE Office of Policy and
International Affairs, to incorporate water consumption and withdrawal values into the
MARKAL model. The MARKAL model has a geographic scope of ten regions and a
limited number of electricity generating technologies. Data developed under the scope of
this existing work will be leveraged and expanded upon for this project.
6. C. W. King, M. E. Webber and I. J. Duncan, “Water Demand Projections for Power
Generation in Texas,” prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, September
2008. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/data/socio/est/Final_pwr.pdf
7. NETL 2007a. 2007 Coal Plant Database. Accessed online:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/hold/technology.html
8. Ongoing project: Jordan Macknick at NREL is managing a project in conjunction with
Argonne National Laboratory, funded through the DOE Office of Policy and
International Affairs, to understand the regional climatic differences in concentrating
solar power (CSP) plant efficiencies and water use requirements. Geographic specific
data developed under the scope of this work will be leveraged for this project.
9. Ongoing project: Craig Turchi at NREL is managing a project to identify the parasitic
energy requirements of CSP technologies under various climatic conditions. This work
will be leveraged and expanded to include other technologies, in conjunction with NETL,
for the purposes of this project.
10. A.S. Stillwell, C.W. King, I.J. Duncan, M.E. Webber and A. Hardberger, “The Energy
Water nexus in Texas,” Environmental Defense Fund and the University of Texas at
Austin, April 2009.
http://www.edf.org/documents/9479_Energy-WaterNexusinTexasApr2009.pdf
11. M.E. Webber, D.T. Allen, K. Ferland, C.W. King, G.T. McGaughey, S.J. Goldman, Y.
Kimura, “A Clean Energy Plan for Texas,” prepared for the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, August 2008.
12. M.E. Clayton, A.S. Stillwell and M.E. Webber, “A Model of Implementing Advanced
Power Plant Cooling Technologies to Mitigate Water Management Challenges in Texas
River Basins,” ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2010.
13. A.S. Stillwell, M.E. Clayton, M.E. Webber, “A River Basin-Based Model of Advanced
Power Plant Cooling Technologies for Mitigating Water Management Challenges,”
AIChE 20010 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, 2010.
14. NETL, 2007b. Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation
Requirements. DOE/NETL-400/2007/1304, 2007.
15. NETL, 2008. Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation
Requirements, 2008 Update. DOE/NETL- 400/2008/1339, 2008.
36
16. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2007, Cost and
Performance Comparison Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants, May 2007.
17. Kobos, P.H., Cappelle, M.A., Krumhansl, J.L., Dewers, T., Borns, D.J., Brady, P.V. and
A. McNemar, 2008, Using Saline Aquifers for Combined Power Plant Water Needs and
Carbon Sequestration. 28th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, New Orleans,
LA, December 3-5, 2008.
18. Ciferno, J., 2009, Use of Non-Traditional Water for Power Plant Applications: An
Overview of DOE/NETL R&D Efforts. DOE/NETL-311/040609, November.
19. S.M. Cohen, G.T. Rochelle and M.E. Webber, “Turning CO2 Capture On & Off In
Response To Electric Grid Demand in Texas: A Baseline Analysis Of Emissions And
Economics,” ASME Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Vol.132, Iss.2, May 17,
2010. DOI: 10.1115/1.4001573, URL: http://link.aip.org/link/?JRG/132/021003
37
Task 3: Water Demand Projection Model
PURPOSE: The water demand projection model provides a basis for estimating future water
demand for sectors competing with electric power generation. These estimates are calculated at
the interconnection, state, county and watershed levels.
deliverables from all other project tasks into an Energy-Water Decision Support System
(EWDSS). The DSS will be fitted with an interface that allows one to combine information from
the various models to explore the multiple dimensions of the Energy-Water nexus. Output from
the EWDSS will inform interconnection wide planning.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Future expansion of the electric power

industry will have to compete with other use sectors for limited water resources. Siting of future
power plants requires a clear understanding of available water resources. Future availability of
such resources will depend on many factors. One of these factors is the growing demand for
water in other use sectors. This task will develop interconnection wide coverages of current and
projected future water demands for the municipal, industrial, agricultural, livestock, and mining
sectors. We will consider in detail potential expanded water demands by fuel extraction (e.g., oil
shales, gas shales) and biofuels. Estimates will be made at the interconnection, state, county and
watershed levels. Through the EWDSS this data can be combined with other data coverages
(e.g., water supply) to evaluate the suitability of various locations for power plant siting.
TASK BUDGET: $479K
Subtask 3.1: Updating the EPWSim Water Demand Model.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: Water demand modeling is typically included as an
integral part of water resource or water operations modeling; specifically, tools that assist in
scheduling water demands based on water availability and institutional rules (as we will do in
this project, see Task 4). These water resource models vary greatly by source (surface water,
groundwater, watershed), physical fidelity, spatial scale, and time step. Some of the more
common tools include MODFLOW1 (groundwater modeling), Riverware2 (river routing and
reservoir operations), HEC platform of tools3 (the Corps of Engineers toolset for river and
watershed management), WEAP4 (systems based water planning tool) and GAMs5 (surface water
planning and optimization). These and similar modeling systems have been used by local, state
and federal entities to model various water supply/demand issues for many of the major river
systems in the West. For example, the State of Texas has developed GAMs models for each river
basin and MODFLOW models for each aquifer system in the state to assist with regional water
planning.6
38
The objective of this project is to assist with interconnection wide planning, which encompasses
the entire western US. It is not feasible over these scales to integrate the existing water resource
models with differing assumptions, spatial/temporal scales, and software architectures.
Additionally there are basins in the West that currently lack any detailed management models.
Fortunately there are several studies that have been conducted to date in which water demand
projections have been developed over broad spatial scales, namely the entire United States. 7-16
The studies by Sovacool14-16 were the only to place particular emphasis on implications of water
use by the thermoelectric power sector. These efforts have the advantage that water demand
projections are estimated in a consistent manner and for all regions within the US. In these
studies water demands are estimated from the national level down to the county level and are
divided across several different water use sectors. Each demand projection is underpinned by the
water use data collected by the USGS.17-19 These water demand projections are based largely on
historical trends; for example, future municipal use is projected as a combination of current per
capita water use and the projected future population.
EPWSim is a model that was developed to explore the nexus between water supply, water
demand, and thermoelectric power generation across the entire US. 20 The water demand model
within EPWSim follows a very similar approach and utilizes the same set of data as do the
studies noted above. Specifically, water demand in EPWSim is individually calculated according
to five different use sectors: municipal (including domestic, public supply, and commercial),
industrial, agriculture, mining and livestock (thermoelectric water demands are calculated under
Task 2). Water use and consumption are tracked separately as are the resulting return flows. Also
modeled is the source of the withdrawal, which can be surface water, groundwater, or a non-
potable source.
Water use statistics published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serve as the primary data
source for the EPWSim analyses.17-19 Every five years since 1950 the nation’s water-use data
have been compiled and published by the USGS; however, the level of detail at which these data
are reported varies from year to year. Data from the 1985, 1990, and 1995 campaigns provide the
most comprehensive picture of water use in the U.S., and hence form the basis of this analysis
(2000 data lack same level of detail and lack consumptive use estimates, thus are only used in a
supporting role for our analysis. The data from 2005 were reported after this model was
assembled). Specifically, the 1995 data provide the initial conditions, while all three data sets are
used to estimate trends in water use rates. These rates are further modified by changes in
population and economic activity (as measured by gross state product) where quantifiable
correlations exist. In this way water use projections are a function of population change,
economic growth and trends in historical water use rates (i.e., reflecting changing
use/conservation practices). Historical trends alone are used to project the source mix (e.g.,
groundwater vs. surface water) for future water withdrawals.
39
Demands are calculated as daily averages. Calculations are made at the county level but can be
aggregated to the watershed, county, state, or interconnection level. The user can accept the
default growth rates and/or source of diversion in the model or specify their own.
NEED: Currently there are no “off the shelf” tools for modeling water demands at the scale of
the western US. EPWSim provides an existing framework for modeling water demands that is
consistent with that utilized in the previously noted water demand studies. Additionally,
EPWSim can easily be integrated with other water resource modules (e.g., thermoelectric
demand as in Task 2, biofuels water demand as noted below, water supply Task 4 and water
institutional rules Task 4). The key limitation of EPWSim is that the water demand model is
based on data collected by the USGS. Given that each state has ongoing efforts toward
state/basin wide water planning they will prefer their data be used in our energy-water planning
exercises. As such, there is significant opportunity to update water demand projections using the
state-specific data.
PROPOSED WORK: Through interactions with the Western States Water Council (WSWC),
which is comprised of water managers from each western state, we will gain access to each
state’s water data and reports. This information will be used to update and develop alternative
growth scenarios of future water demand. Additionally, we will work to update the initial
conditions in the model to reflect that recently published in the 2005 USGS Water Use Report
(augmented with state input) and ongoing efforts by the USGS relative to their National Water
Census.21 We will also review the U.S. Corps of Engineers’ (COE’s) recently-completed, state-
by-state assessment of integrated water supply planning. Throughout this process we will also
work to broadly vet the water demand model with the cooperative modeling team and as needed
with stakeholders convened by WSWC, WECC, WGA, and ERCOT.
In developing the water demand and availability models for the energy demand and support
system, it is proposed that Sandia National Laboratories begin with three or four western states
as part of a pilot project to extract information from their water plans regarding water use and
supply projections. The purpose of this pilot effort will be to better understand the types of
information available in various state’s water plans, to determine the level of effort necessary to
extract the information from the plans, and determine how best to vet the resulting supply and
demand models with respective state water managers. Based on the results of the pilot study a
framework will be developed that can then be extended to the remaining western states. Ideally,
the selected states would be actively engaged in the project and would have water plans that
serve as a representative sample of the various water plans found throughout the western states.
An effort should also be made to consider those states where the connection between energy and
water is significant.
40
One possible way to select states to participate in the project is for the Western States Water
Council to survey its member states to determine the extent of their willingness and ability to
participate in the pilot project. Such a survey could also generate information on the structure
and organization of each state’s water plans. In appropriate cases, Sandia may be able to
alleviate the financial and human resource needs that states may experience if they participate in
the project by performing the bulk of the information extraction. In such cases, states will need
to appoint a contact person to provide guidance and assistance as needed.
Sandia will lead the effort to collect and integrate data from the Western Interconnection region
while the University of Texas will lead efforts within the ERCOT region. The Western States
Water Council includes governor-appointed water managers from all of the states in the Western
interconnection as well as Texas; as a result, the Council is well-positioned to provide a seamless
perspective on the project approach to water demands. As noted above, a water demand model
at the county level currently exists for the entire WECC and ERCOT regions. As such, water
demand projections will be available for planning efforts at the beginning of the project.
However, these estimates will be changing and improving over the course of the project.
Sandia will ensure that the updated EPWSim model is approved by WGA and the Western States
Water Council before delivering a final product.
Deliverable 3.1.1: Update EPWSim water demand model with state provided data and
additional data from the USGS surveys
Budget: $250K
Deliverable 3.1.1: Update EPWSim water demand model with data from Texas
End Date: May 1, 2012
Budget: $15K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Performing this work will provide the

most up-to-date projections on water demands for municipal, industrial, mining, livestock, and
agricultural purposes. It is necessary to understand how future demands in these other sectors
will compete with growing thermoelectric water use demands. By working directly with each
state we will improve project transparency and consensus in project results.
Subtask 3.2: Biofuel Water Use.
41
CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: The National Academies of Science22 were the first
to take a comprehensive look at the nexus between water and biofuels. While the report provides
a solid overview of the issues, there are a couple of important deficiencies. First, the report is not
the product of a quantitative analysis; rather, findings are based on broad general trends. Second,
the report is largely focused at the national level with limited reference made to regional details
(with such regions representing the aggregate over 5-10 states). Finally, the report ignores water
requirements associated with biofuel processing.
Using a basic water balance approach Argonne23 examined the growing issue of water use in
energy production by characterizing current consumptive water use in liquid fuel production.
Water requirements are evaluated for five fuel pathways: bioethanol from corn, ethanol from
cellulosic feedstocks, gasoline from Canadian oil sands, Saudi Arabian crude, and U.S.
conventional crude from onshore wells. The analysis was applied on a regional basis according
to 10 USDA farm-production regions.
Higher resolution studies have been conducted looking at the potential to use roadway buffer
strips, brownfield sites, and marginal agricultural land to produce feedstock.24 Additionally
considered was the use of degraded water for irrigation. This study was limited to the State of
Nebraska.
The GAO recently performed an overview of the potential for biofuel water use.25 Based on
interviews with experts they report that the extent to which increased biofuels production will
affect the nation’s water resources depends on the type of feedstock selected and how and where
it is grown. The use of certain agricultural practices, alternative water sources, and technological
innovations can mitigate the effects of biofuels production on water resources, but there are some
barriers to their widespread adoption. This was largely a review exercise with no effort to
independently estimate water use.
A system dynamics model has been developed to investigate potential market penetration
scenarios for cellulosic ethanol, and to aid decision makers in focusing government actions on
the areas with greatest potential to accelerate the deployment of biofuels.26 The model considers
the broad supply chain from feedstock production, transportation, fuels processing, and final fuel
distribution. Unfortunately this tool does not currently consider the spatial implications of water
demand for feedstock irrigation and fuels processing.
A biofuels water use model was recently developed through collaboration between Sandia and
General Motors.27 The model calculates annual water withdrawal and consumption for both
irrigation and feedstock conversion. Feedstocks modeled include corn, switch grass, short
rotation woody crops, forest residue, and agricultural residues. The model estimates growing
water use to meet biofuel production goals on a state level basis. This model has the advantage
that it is spatially resolved at the state level, deals explicitly with water withdrawal and
42
consumption issues, and projects how water demands will vary in time reflecting the changing
mix of feedstocks and fuel processing technologies.
In addition, a Texas-specific spatially-resolved (at the county level) integrated biological growth
and engineering model was created that estimates growth of biofeedstock (namely algae, in this
case) on a monthly basis.28 This model incorporates water availability, CO2 use (from ambient
air or flue gases), and solar insolation, and the general framework can be adapted for other
biofuels or other regions.
Key to the aforementioned models and analysis is an accurate estimate of water use by existing
and rapidly evolving energy crops. Energy crops require different amounts of water depending
on the location’s soil and climatic conditions. These conditions contribute to determining
whether or not energy crops require irrigation, how much irrigation, and when it will be needed.
A key player in Bioenergy feedstocks is the DOE biofuels program, managed by DOE EE&RE
in cooperation with the USDA. The lead DOE laboratories include INL, NREL and ORNL. The
Bioenergy Feedstock Information Network (BFIN)29 is a consolidated website used to maintain
biomass feedstock information generated by this organization and others. Significant research
and development is being conducted on many aspects of biomass growth and biofuel production
and DOE and the laboratories have initiated some nascent work on the impacts of growth and
production on water resources. However, water-related research is rather limited at this time.
All water-related publications documented on this site are focused on water quality impacts of
biofuels (which are extensive30) rather than water supply and demand.
Currently under development at NREL is a system dynamics model to assess the water footprint
of energy crops based on crop type, ambient climatic conditions, and soil type. 31-32 This model
makes use of methods and data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cligen weather generator.33-35 This model improves
upon previous work analyzing the water footprint of energy crops by achieving a higher spatial
resolution and having the flexibility to adapt to a dynamic climate regime.35-38 This model also
has the benefit of being applicable at any spatial scale required for modeling and planning
purposes.
NEED: Currently there are only two biofuel models that provide water use trends at the scale of
the western US, the Argonne23 and the Sandia-GM models.27 The Sandia-GM model has the
advantage of considering a broader range of feedstock materials, higher spatial resolution, it is
dynamic in time, and the model is constructed in the same system dynamics framework as
EPWSim. Although these models are developed in the same software, the two models need to be
integrated. The spatial resolution of the Sandia-GM biofuel model also needs to be improved to
the county level. Additionally, energy feedstock technology is evolving rapidly and thus
feedstock data in the Sandia-GM model needs to be updated. Specifically, new feedstocks need
43
to be added, where they are most likely to be grown, and what their water requirements are likely
to be under different climate conditions.
PROPOSED WORK: This activity will expand the water demand model in EPWSim to
consider irrigation and fuels processing requirements for biofuels. The first step is to integrate
the Sandia-GM biofuels model into EPWSim. This will require improving the spatial resolution
of the GM-Sandia biofuel model from the state to the county level. Additionally, new modules
will be developed for additional energy feedstocks.
Improved data on potential feedstock water use will also be integrated into the EPWSim.
Specifically, INL will develop a GIS-coverage map for known and projected locations of biofuel
crops in the U.S. According to these projected coverages NREL will focus on assessing current
and potential biofuel water demands utilizing national/west-wide data collected/currently being
collected by DOE, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other researchers and utilizing
the life cycle assessment and water footprint tools being developed at NREL.31 These climatic-
and geographic-specific water requirements for energy crops will consider unique crop attributes,
soil type, and climatic conditions and general western crop growth factors (e.g., growing season,
temperature, precipitation and soil data), and biofuels feedstock data and information currently
being developed at INL. The University of Texas will work with INL and NREL to develop
similar Texas wide biofuels water use projections. Funding for this effort will support scaling of
current coverages, which are at the USDA Production Region level, down to the county level.
Additionally, funding will support integration of the data and models into EPWSim and to work
with our interconnection partners to include any state-specific energy feedstock data that may be
available.
Deliverable 3.2.1: Biofuel-EPWSim model integration.

Budget: $50K
Deliverable 3.2.2: Geographic and climate specific water requirements for energy crops
Start Date: June 1, 2011
Budget: $44K
Deliverable 3.2.3: Geographic locations for energy crops

Responsible Partner: INL
44
Budget: $65K
Deliverable 3.2.4: Estimate water use for energy crops in Texas

Budget: $20K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Historical trends on water use for

agricultural irrigation are not sufficient to project future demands because of the potential growth
in the biofuels industry (there is no historical precedence). As such we cannot simply rely on the
agricultural demand projections from the state planning efforts (subtask 3.1). With the data and
models developed here we will estimate the total biofuel water demand (in terms of rainwater
and irrigation water) and produce related water footprint maps. By integrating this data within
EPWSim we will be able to project alternative biofuel growth scenarios for comparison with
other water demand sectors (including thermoelectric).
Subtask 3.3: Water Use for Energy Extraction.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: Argonne staff has investigated the energy-water
relationships for components and lifecycles of energy resource extraction and processing. As
noted above, water requirements were evaluated for five fuel pathways: bioethanol from corn,
ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks, gasoline from Canadian oil sands, Saudi Arabian crude, and
U.S. conventional crude from onshore wells.23 The analysis was applied on a regional basis
according to 10 USDA farm-production regions.
In a similar study estimates of domestic freshwater demand were developed as expressed by

consumption (not withdrawal) to the year 2030 in five-year increments at the national and
regional levels for energy and non-energy uses.39 Energy sectors for which water consumption
estimates were made in this study include coal (mining and slurry transportation), oil (crude oil
exploration and production, liquids from conventional sources, and refining), gas (processing,
pipeline transport, and gas from tight sands and shale), biofuels (biodiesel and ethanol
production), and hydrogen production. Water consumption estimates for these sectors were
developed by multiplying energy-production projections that come from the DOE’s Energy
Information Administration (EIA) by sector specific coefficients that relate water consumption to
energy production.
Heavy oils (e.g., oil shales, tar sands) represent a possible important energy source in the future.
Water use can be realized both directly through the processes involved in extracting the oil as
well as through the substantial amount of energy required for removing the heavy oil from the
ground, processing it, and transporting it off-site. General estimates for such water use have been
45
made for a range of reservoir conditions and extraction technologies.40 Los Alamos National
Laboratory has also recently developed an integrated oil shale-water-economics model to
investigate potential evolution of oil shale reserves in Colorado and Utah,41 while Argonne has
conducted related Environmental Assessments for many reservoirs in the west.42
Large-scale deployment of electric vehicles is likely to have an impact on water use. Such
impacts may occur through increased demand on thermoelectric power generation as well as
changes in demand for traditional and emerging (e.g., biofuels) transportation fuels. A number of
studies have been conducted to look at potential water use scenarios from a national
perspective.43-45
NEED: As noted above, significant efforts have been made to quantify water use and
consumption supporting energy extraction and processing. However, there is no “off the shelf”
tool for broadly estimating future water use for energy extraction. As such there is a need for a
comprehensive compilation of this data into a single source that makes this information available
for comparison within the context of broader water demand (e.g., task 2, subtasks 3.1 and 3.2)
and supply issues (e.g., task 4).
PROPOSED WORK: We will expand the EPWSim water use module to consider potential
growth in the withdrawal and consumption of water for energy resource extraction and
processing throughout the western U.S. This will include conventional oil, gas and coal
extraction as well as other potentially important energy sources such as gas shales, tar sands and
others. A consistent lifecycle treatment of these various fuels and their supporting extraction and
processing technologies will be pursued. This task will largely involve integration of existing
data and algorithms developed by Argonne, University of Texas and others into EPWSim.
Additionally, choices on future electric power generation will be reflected in the demands for the
associated fuels and their related water use. This analysis will also support development of
alternative scenarios that differ in terms of future fuel utilization and extraction/processing
technologies.
Deliverable 3.3.1: Integrate water use/consumption data for energy extraction into EPWSim
Responsible Partner: Argonne National Laboratory
Budget: $15K
Deliverable 3.3.2: Integrate water use/consumption data for gas shale extraction into
EPWSim
46
Budget: $20K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Like water demand for biofuels,

historical water use trends associated with mining and processing of energy fuels are not
sufficient to project future demands because of the rapid changes in fuel sources, technologies
and demands (there is no historical precedence). As such we cannot simply rely on the demand
projections from the state planning efforts (subtask 3.1). With the data and models developed
here we will estimate the total water demands for energy extraction and processing. By
integrating this data within EPWSim we will be able to project alternative energy growth
scenarios for comparison with other water demand sectors (including thermoelectric).
References
1. U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, MODFLOW: 3D Finite-Difference Groundwater Flow
Model, model and description available at:
http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/gwsoftware/modflow.html
2. CADSWES, 2004, Riverware, model and description available at:
http://cadswes.colorado.edu/riverware/viewer/Download/viewer_install_guide_solaris.ht
ml
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010, HEC: Hydrologic Engineering Center, models and
descriptions available at: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/
4. SEI, 2010, WEAP: Water Evaluation and Planning model, model and description
available at: http://www.weap21.org/
5. GAMS, 2010, model and description available at: http://www.gams.com/
6. Texas Water Development Board, 2006, Regional Water Planning, available at:
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/rwp/rwp.asp
7. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978, The Nation’s Water Resources: 1975-2000, Second
National Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office.
8. Brown, T.C., 1999. Past and Future Freshwater Use in the United States: A Technical
Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RMRS-FTR-39, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 47pp.
9. Guldin, R.W., 1989. An Analysis of the Water Situation in the United States: 1989-2040.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-FTR-177, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 178 pp.
10. Roy, S.B., K. Summers, C. Chung, and J. Raddle, 2003. A survey of water use and
sustainability in the United States with a focus on power generation, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA.
11. Hurd, B., N. Leary, R. Jones and J. Smith, 1999, Relative regional vulnerability of water
resources to climate change, Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
35(6), 1399-1409.
47
12. Roy, S.B., Ricci, P.F., Summers, K.V., Chung, C.-F., and Goldstein, R.A., 2005.
Evaluation of the sustainability of water withdrawals in the United States, 1995 to 2025,
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 1091-1108.
13. Natural resources Defense Council, Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water
Demands in 2050 under Climate Change Scenarios, July 2010. available at:
http://rd.tetratech.com/climatechange/projects/nrdc_climate.asp
14. Sovacool, B.K., 2009. Nexus and the U.S. electric utility sector, Energy Law Journal,
30(11), 11-51.
15. Sovacool, B.K. and K.E. Sovacool, 2009a. Preventing National Electricity-Water Crisis
Areas in the United States, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law. 34(2), 333-393.
16. Sovacool, B.K. and K.E. Sovacool, 2009b. Identifying future electricity–water tradeoffs
in the United States, Energy Policy. 37, 2763–2773.
17. Wayne B. Solley, Robert R. Pierce, and Howard A. Perlman, 1995. Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 1995, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. Available at
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/
18. Wayne B. Solley, Robert R. Pierce, and Howard A. Perlman, 1990. Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 1990, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1081. Available at
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wucircular2.html
19. Solley, Wayne B.; Merk, Charles F.; Pierce, Robert R., 1988, Estimated Use of Water in
the United States in 1985, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1004. Available at
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1004
20. Tidwell, V.C., P.H. Kobos, L. Malczynski, G. Klise and W. Hart, 2009, Decision Support
for Integrated Water-Energy Planning, SAND Report, SAND2009, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
21. Ongoing project: The U.S. Geological Survey through the Secure Water Act will be
conducting a nation-wide census of water use. This new and expanded water census was
initiated earlier this year. We have already made contact with the management of this
USGS project (Eric Evenson Trenton, NJ). We will coordinate activities to the extent
possible and use the USGS data as it becomes available (most of this data is gathered
directly from the states, see project citation above).
22. National Research Council, Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United
States, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., p. 76, 2008.
23. Wu, M., M. Mintz, M. Wang and S. Arora, 2009, Consumptive water use in the
production of ethanol and petroleum gasoline, ANL/ESD/09-1, Argonne National
Laboratory.
24. Gopalakrishnan, G., M.C. Negri, M. Wang, M. Wu, S.W. Snyder and L. Lafreniere,
2009. Biofuels, land and water: A systems approach to sustainability, Environ. Sci
Technol. 43, 6094-6100.
25. U.S. Government Accountability Office, ENERGY-WATER NEXUS: Many
Uncertainties Remain about National and Regional Effects of Increased Biofuel
Production on Water Resources, GAO-10-116, November 2009.
26. Gush, B., M. Duffy and D. Sandor, 2008. Using system dynamics to model the transition
to biofuels in the United States, NREL/CP-150-43153, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
27. Todd West, Katherine Dunphy-Guzman, Amy Sun, Len Malczynski, David Reichmuth,
Richard Larson, James Ellison, Robert Taylor, Vincent Tidwell, Lennie Klebanoff,
48
Patricia Hough, Andrew Lutz, Christopher Shaddix, Norman Brinkman, Candace
Wheeler, David O’Toole, 2002, Feasibility, economics, and environmental impact of
producing 90 billion gallons of ethanol per year by 2030, accepted for publication in
Bioresource Technology. Nation-wide assessment of biofuels potential. Provides
evaluation of water withdrawal and consumption potential by biofuels feedstock
irrigation and feedstock conversion for each state in the U.S.
28. Wogan, D.M., A.K. ad Silva, and M.E. Webber, 2009, “Assessing the Potential for Algal
Biofuels Production in Texas,” Proceedings of the ASME 3rd International Conference
on Energy Sustainability, San Francisco, CA. Assessment of algae based biofuel
production in Texas.
29. ORNL 2010. The Bioenergy Feedstock Information Network (BFIN)
(http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/main.aspx), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge
Tennessee.
30. K.M. Twomey, A.S. Stillwell and M.E. Webber, “Nitrate Contamination as a Result of
Biofuels Production and Its Unintended Energy Impacts for Treating Drinking Water,”
Journal of Environmental Monitoring (2010).
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EM/article.asp?doi=B913137J
31. Heath, G. A.; Hsu, D. D.; Inman, D.; Aden, A.; Mann, M. K., 2009, Life Cycle
Assessment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: Ethanol – Global
Warming Potential and Environmental Emissions. 9 pp.; NREL Report No. CP-6A2-
45805. Provides data on energy crop water requirements.
32. Ongoing project: Daniel Inman is managing a project to identify the water footprint of
various energy crops based on a variety of crop, climate, and soil conditions. This work
aggregates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Production Region level. This work
will be leveraged and its geographic scope expanded for this project.
33. Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-
Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper
no. 56.
34. USDA CLIGEN data. http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=18094
35. Gerbens-Leenes, W., Hoekstra, A.Y., and van der Meer, T.H. 2009. The water footprint
of bioenergy. PNAS. 106 (25): 10219-10223.
36. Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. Hoekstra, A.Y. and Van der Meer. Th. (2009) The water footprint
of energy from biomass: A quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing
share of bio-energy in energy supply, Ecological Economics, 68(4): 1052-1060.
37. Grosshans, R., Kostelnik, K.M., Jacobson, J.J. (2007). Sustainable Harvest for Food and
Fuel Preliminary Food & Fuel Gap Analysis Report (INL/EXT-07-12523) Idaho National
Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
38. Hess, J.R., Jacobson, J.J., Nelson, R., and Wolf, C. (2009). International Energy Agency
(IEA) Task 40, Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade: Securing Supply and
Demand; Country Report – United States (INL/EXT-09-16132), Idaho National
Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
39. Argonne National Laboratory, November 2008, Baseline and Projected Water Demand
Data for Energy and Competing Water Use Sectors, ANL/EVS/TM/08-8
40. Argonne National Laboratory, November 2008, Water Issues Associated with Heavy Oil
Production, ANL/EVS/R-08/4.
49
41. Current project investigating water use, oil shale production, carbon footprint and
economics in the western U.S. Project is directed by Andy Wolfsberg at Los Alamos
National Laboratory. This project will provide useful data for our project.
42. Argonne National Laboratory, September 2007, Proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands
Resource Management Plans Amendments to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado,
Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement USBLM
FES 08-32. Evaluation of potential water use in the development of oil shales and tar
sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
43. C. W. King, M. E. Webber and I. J. Duncan, “The Water Needs for LDV Transportation
in the United States,” Energy Policy, Vol. 38 (2), pp 1157-1167 (2010).
44. C.W. King and M.E. Webber, “The Water Intensity of Transportation,” Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, November 2008.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800367m
45. C.W. King and M.E. Webber, “The Water Intensity of the Plugged-in Automotive
Economy,” Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, February 2008.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0716195
50
Task 4: Water Availability Model
PURPOSE: The water availability model provides a regional measure of water supply for
surface water, groundwater, and non-potable resources. The model has two principle
components, “wet” and “paper” water. Wet water provides a measure of the physical water
available in a basin for use, while paper water addresses the institutional controls (policies) that
define access to the water.
deliverables from all other project tasks into an Energy Water Decision Support System
(EWDSS). The DSS will be fitted with an interface that allows one to combine information from
the various models to explore the wide range of dimensions important to the Energy-Water
nexus. Output from the EWDSS will form the basis for the interconnection wide planning.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Siting of future power plants needs to be

made with a clear understanding of available water resources. Future availability of such
resources will depend on many factors. One of these factors is the sustainable water supply. This
task will develop interconnection wide coverages of current and projected water supply for
surface water, groundwater and non-potable resources. Also considered are the institutional
controls that may limit access to surface and groundwater supplies. Estimates will be available at
the interconnection, state and watershed levels. Through the EWDSS this data can be combined
with other data coverages (e.g., water demand) to evaluate the suitability of various locations for
power plant siting.
TASK BUDGET: $894K
Subtask 4.1: Update EPWSim Water Availability Model.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: Water supply/availability modeling is typically an
integral element of water resource or water operations modeling. As described in Subtask 3.1
there are a wide range of water resource models that vary greatly by water source, physical
fidelity, spatial scale, and time step (see Subtask 3.1 for examples). Again, recognizing that the
objective of this project is to assist with interconnection wide planning, which encompasses the
entire western U.S., it is not feasible over these scales to integrate existing water resource models
with their differing assumptions, spatial/temporal scales, and software architectures. Additionally
there are basins in the West that currently lack any detailed management modeling.
Depending on the type of questions being addressed, estimates of water supply can require very
detailed data such as high resolution river hydrographs (daily or 15-minute gauge data); reservoir
operations; rainfall-runoff-watershed modeling; water rights and allocation rules; environmental
flows and habitat impacts; aquifer characteristics and groundwater flow modeling; surface water
and groundwater interaction; and potentially many others. As noted above, collection of such
51
data and development of accompanying models is infeasible at the scale of the western U.S. To
make water supply modeling tractable over the western U.S. simpler metrics are necessary.
Similar to the case of water demand (Subtask 3.1), there are several studies that have been
conducted to date in which water supply projections have been developed over broad spatial
scales.1-10 Examples of metrics used in these studies include available precipitation6,7; mean
gauged river flow1,5; average groundwater base flow5; and, average low month gauged river
flow1. These metrics are then combined with measures of water demand to identify regions of
potential water stress.
EPWSim is a model that was developed to explore the nexus between water supply, water
demand, and thermoelectric power generation across the entire US. 11 The water supply model
within EPWSim follows a very similar approach and utilizes similar sets of data as that of the
studies noted above. Specifically, EPWSim models surface and groundwater availability at the
accounting unit (6-digit Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]) level. The basis of this modeling is the
USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD). Specifically, the USGS has stream flow data from
23,000 gauges in which the available sampling record has been statistically analyzed to give the
minimum and maximum daily flows, mean daily flow, key percentiles (1, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 75,
80, 90, 95, 99) of daily flow, and the base flow index.12 For each watershed we have identified
the NHD gauge with the longest record and which is the closest to the point of discharge. As
activities upstream of the gauge will affect the measured flow, the NHD long term statistics are
constantly adjusted in the model for changes in consumptive use upstream of the gauge
(projections of water consumption from Task 3). Specifically, changes in water consumption
(post 2004) are sequentially aggregated across watersheds from headwater to the gauge. The
aggregated consumption is then subtracted from the long term gauge statistics to yield an
adjusted measure of water availability.
The model combines historical gauge data and other information to project surface and
groundwater availability. Mean daily flow provides a good measure of the average surface water
supply available at the gauge location, while the accompanying exceedence flows provide a
measure of the variability in supply at that point. Likewise, the gauged average daily baseflow
index (that portion of the stream flow contributed by groundwater discharge) provides a good
measure of the sustainable groundwater recharge available for use. Each of these metrics is used
to estimate available “wet” water at a given location. Demands are represented as daily averages.
Algorithms have been developed to allow scaling and relating data between the watershed and
county levels (e.g., relating metrics of water supply to metrics of water demand [Task 3]).
NEED: Currently there are no “off the shelf” tools for modeling water supply at the scale of the
western US. EPWSim provides an existing framework for modeling water supply that is
consistent with that utilized in the previously noted studies. Additionally, EPWSim can easily be
integrated with other water resource modules (e.g., thermoelectric demand as in Task 2, biofuels
52
water demand as in Subtask 3.2, and water institutional rules as below). As with the water
demand model (Task 3), EPWSim is based on data collected by the USGS. As such, water
supply metrics used in EPWSim need to be vetted with state level data collected as part of
ongoing efforts toward state/basin wide water planning. As in the case of water demand, states
will want to see their own data used in the model. Additionally, EPWSim would benefit from the
addition of other water supply metrics, like effective precipitation.
PROPOSED WORK: Through interactions with the Western States Water Council (WSWC),
which is comprised of water managers from each western state, we will gain access to each
state’s water data and reports. This information will be used to update and develop state
approved water supply metrics. Additionally, we will cooperate with the USGS, using pertinent
information derived from their ongoing efforts relative to National Water Census13 and the
WGA’s Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future Program.14 We will also review the
U.S. Corps of Engineers recently-completed, state-by-state assessment of integrated water supply
planning. Throughout this process we will also work to broadly vet the water supply model with
the cooperative modeling team and as needed with stakeholders convened by WSWC, WECC,
WGA, and ERCOT. We will also work with these same teams of stakeholders to develop and
implement other appropriate water supply metrics.
As a first step we will poll or interview Western state water managers to identify hot spots for
water competition. This information will give us a head start on highlighting issues and
identifying specific basins for a potential ‘deep dive’ analysis. In addition, the polling results
will serve as a check on future analytic results.
In developing the water availability model for the EWDSS, it is proposed that Sandia National
Laboratories begin with three or four western states as part of a pilot project to extract
information from their water plans regarding water supply projections. The purpose of this pilot
effort will be to better understand the types of information available in various state’s water
plans, to determine the level of effort necessary to extract the information from the plans, and
determine how best to vet the resulting supply models with respective state water managers.
Based on the results of the pilot study a framework will be developed that can then be extended
to the remaining western states. Ideally, the selected states would be actively engaged in the
project and would have water plans that serve as a representative sample of the various water
plans found throughout the western states. An effort should also be made to consider those states
where the connection between energy and water is significant.
One possible way to select states to participate in the project is for the Western States Water
Council to survey its member states to determine the extent of their willingness and ability to
participate in the pilot project. Such a survey could also generate information on the structure
and organization of each state’s water plans. In appropriate cases, Sandia may be able to
53
alleviate the financial and human resource needs that states may experience if they participate in
the project by performing the bulk of the information extraction. In such cases, states will need
to appoint a contact person to provide guidance and assistance as needed.
Sandia will lead the effort to collect and integrate data from the Western Interconnection region
while the University of Texas will lead efforts within the ERCOT region. The Western States
Water Council includes governor-appointed water managers from all of the states in the Western
interconnection as well as Texas; as a result, the Council is well-positioned to provide a seamless
perspective on the project approach to water demands. As noted above, a water supply model at
the 6-digit watershed level currently exists for the entire WECC and ERCOT regions. As such,
water supply projections will be available for planning efforts at the beginning of the project.
However, these estimates will be changing and improving over the course of the project.
Sandia will ensure that the updated EPWSim model is approved by WGA and the Western States
Water Council before delivering a final product.
Deliverable 4.1.1: Complete pilot water supply metrics study with 3-4 western states
Budget: $100K
Deliverable 4.1.2: Update surface water supply metrics for the WECC
Start Date: October, 2011
Budget: $150K
Deliverable 4.1.3: Update surface water supply metrics for Texas

Budget: $15K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Performing this work will provide

broadly vetted metrics of water availability across the West. These measures of water supply can
subsequently be combined with measures of water demand and various resources constraints to
project regions of potential future water stress. Identification of such locations is critically
pertinent to interconnection wide transmission planning and the broad siting of future power
54
plants. Also, by working directly with each state we will improve project transparency and
consensus in project results.
Subtask 4.2: Expand Water Availability Model.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: Through DOE’s Hydropower program INL has
developed the Virtual Hydropower Prospector (VHP).15 The synthetic watersheds and stream
networks contained in the VHP are a unique approach developed by the INL and the USGS to
assess hydropower potential throughout the U.S. for the purpose of locating potential new
hydropower sites in both gauged and un-gauged watersheds in the U.S. The synthetic
watersheds were designed to capture precipitation and evapotranspiration information from
regional models (e.g., PRISM) and watershed runoff regression curves were developed to assess
the timing of runoff, and to entrain the runoff to the synthetic stream system. The synthetic
stream-flows are then evaluated against topographical data extracted from digital elevation
models to assess potential hydropower head in any given synthetic watershed within the U.S.
This is a unique process that is shared by INL and the USGS and is only available in the VHP
and is being incorporated into the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD).
NEED: The surface water supply metrics developed under subtask 4.1 are reported at the 6-digit
HUC watershed level. This level was adopted because it is the highest HUC resolution in which
every watershed has a long term gauge record. The VHP’s synthetic watersheds and stream
network provides unique insights to un-gauged watersheds thus allowing estimation of mean
annual stream flows at the 8-digit HUC level. The VHP also provide a means of identify and
estimating the hydropower potential at the 8-digit HUC level throughout the West.
PROPOSED WORK: In this task we will work to integrate the VHP into the EPWSim
framework. Currently, the 3 to 5 mi2 synthetic watershed and stream data contained within the
VHP is at a scale that is not directly comparable to current regional-scale modeling and
assessments; for this reason we will scale the synthetic watershed data so as to be compatible
with USGS 8-digit HUC level watersheds for regional and west-wide assessments. Additionally,
synthetic data within the prospector currently supports mean annual flows. INL will add
seasonal flows and exceedence flows if sufficient data are readily available from
regional/national databases (e.g., PRISM data).
Initiation of this subtask is currently being delayed until later in the project. This delay is
necessitated in part by the need to coordinate this activity with Task 5: Environmental Controls
Model and Task 6: Climate Change Calculator, who’s SOWs, will be negotiated at a later time. It
is under these tasks that the value of the improved spatial resolution and enhanced data products
will be fully realized. Based on the evolution of Tasks 5 and 6 we may decide to move the timing
of this effort up or alternatively reduce/eliminate the task completely.
55
Deliverable 4.2.1 Integrate the VHP into EPWSim
Responsible Partner: Idaho National Laboratory
Budget: $70K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Integration of the VHP will provide

measures of mean and possibly seasonal stream flow at the 8-digit rather than 6-digit HUC
watershed level. This means higher spatial resolution on estimates of surface water availability.
The VHP will also help locate and bound likely expansion of hydropower in the West.
Subtask 4.3: Expand Groundwater Availability Model.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: Groundwater is assessed and managed by local,
state and federal agencies; however, groundwater data are neither easily compiled nor readily
accessible across political boundaries and data are also not gathered in many areas. That is due to
the fact that no one agency is responsible for providing a nationwide assessment and evaluation
of the conditions, availability or water-quality trends of the country’s groundwater resources.
Therefore, the USGS, EPA and state partners from Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New
Jersey and Texas have initiated five pilot projects to test the concept of developing a National
Ground Water Monitoring Network.16 The purpose of the collaboration is to assess existing data,
review data collection and storage methods, analyze data gaps and to test the feasibility of
sharing data between agencies.17 This program is just beginning with its first evaluation
scheduled to be available in 2011.
USGS has developed a national atlas of aquifer in the US, which provides estimates of the size,
location and hydrology and geology of the major aquifers in the US, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. This information is available digitally for use via national.atlas.gov.18
USGS is responsible for estimating water use, including groundwater use. This information is
summarized and published every 5 years, including 1950 through 2005.19 Until 2000, these
estimates were summarized for watersheds, aquifers and counties; however, budget cuts required
USGS to reduce its analysis and therefore, the summaries focused on county-level data. This
information will be utilized for the proposed work.
There are a number of USGS reports available for selected groundwater resources in the West.
These include research on recharge in the southwestern U.S.,20 and Regional Aquifer-System
Analysis (RASA) studies21 to define regional geohydrology and established geologic, hydrologic
and geochemical frameworks and provided regional assessments of ground-water resources in
support of detailed local studies. The RASA studies were conducted from 1978 to 1995, with
about 20 being conducted in the west.
NEED: Groundwater supplies a majority of the nation’s community water systems and almost
half of its irrigation, but there is currently no system that can provide a nationwide assessment
and evaluation of the conditions, availability or water-quality trends of the country’s
56
groundwater resources. While there are a number of datasets with information pertinent to
groundwater resource availability, these data have yet to be collated into a single comprehensive
dataset.
PROPOSED WORK: Mapping of groundwater availability will be expanded by consolidating

existing groundwater information (as noted above) within a standardized GIS coverage. The
USGS base map of aquifers in the western U.S. will be used to collect and consolidate available
information on general aquifer type (e.g., freshwater, brackish water, saltwater), and more
specific information on the classification and use of economically viable aquifers (e.g., sole
source and drinking water aquifers).22-25 Additional groundwater availability information will
include EPA’s wellhead protection/sole source aquifer programs and USGS and/or state
saltwater intrusion maps. We will also use the CMT along with WECC, WGA, and ERCOT
stakeholder teams, to gather and incorporate regional specific groundwater data. All combined,
this information will be used to estimate the potential for groundwater depletions in a given
basin.
Deliverable 4.3.1: Integrate groundwater data available from Federal sources into EPWSim
Budget: $35K
Deliverable 4.3.2: Integrate groundwater data available from state sources into EPWSim
Budget: $45K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This subtask will generate additional

metrics useful to assessing groundwater availability. This will greatly improve insight into
groundwater supply over the single metric currently in EPWSim (base flow index).
Subtask 4.4: Non-Potable Resources.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: With increasing competition for and restrictions on
withdrawals from freshwater resources,36 it is becoming more commonplace for electric utilities
to evaluate alternate or degraded water sources to meet power plant water needs. There exists a
large body of literature that pertains to the assessment of these issues.26-65 Potential alternate
sources include reclaimed municipal wastewater, agricultural drainage, saline groundwater, oil
and gas produced water, water from mine drainage, water from industrial processes and
stormwater. Key issues that must be addressed in evaluating the use of alternate water supplies
57
for power plant use, include: quantity, quality, treatment requirements, discharge requirements,
transport, acquisition, and regulations.40
For single cycle Rankine generation (be it fossil, nuclear, geothermal, biomass or solar), cooling
is the dominant water use; however, depending on the type of generation, power plants also use
water for scrubbing, ash handling, landscape irrigation, toilet flushing, drinking, gas turbine
operation, and solar cell and mirror cleaning.39 Although the quantity of stormwater that can be
collected onsite will not be sufficient to meet cooling needs, it can be used to meet other uses.
Conceivably, stormwater collected onsite could be augmented by stormwater collected offsite.
Because the production of stormwater is intermittent, a retention basin is required for its use.41
Municipal effluent is currently being use by approximately 60 generation facilities.64 The

greatest numbers of facilities using municipal effluent are located in Florida, Texas, California
and Arizona. The amount used varies from 0.1 to 55 mgd.40 Volume of municipal effluent
produced by a treatment facility is a function of surrounding population density; hence, potential
for power plant use is greatest for urban-sited plants. In general, in comparison to other high
volume sources of degraded water, sewage treatment effluent has the best quality which is a
function of treatment level and technologies. In Ohio in 2000 the total flow of sewage effluent
was equal to 55% of cooling requirements of Ohio generation plants, for Illinois the percentage
was 43% and for Michigan, 33%.40
In general, produced water is not as commonly available as sewage treatment plant effluent.
Produced water quality is highly variable. Constituents of concern include: oil, grease, total
dissolved solids, chloride, barium and boron. States having the highest produced water
production are Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Wyoming and California.40
Based on 1995 calculations by USGS, daily agricultural return flow in the U.S. is about 27,000
mg.40 Quality varies depending on geology, soil, hydrology, fertilizer and pesticide use, and
management practices. Potential for use is greatest in the western U.S. and Florida.
There is no national data base for volumes on saline groundwaters, only depths; however, some
western states have volume estimates. Quality depends on geology and is likely to be similar to
produced waters in the same basin.
Use of degraded water sources might require pre- and post-treatment that would not be needed
with freshwater. Waters with high dissolved solids will probably need pre-treatment to reduce
scaling, corrosion and fouling potential. Because cooling water constituents will be concentrated
during recycling, blowdown may require treatment. For instance, discharge of nutrients by a
waste treatment plant may be below receiving water quality criteria; however, after the same
58
water is used in the power plant cooling system, the elevated concentrations of nutrients in the
blowdown may not meet the criteria.
Power plant design and materials are tailored to anticipated water chemistry. Switching to new
water sources after construction can result in new treatment needs, new operation procedures and
replacement of existing construction materials. Ammonia in waste water treatment effluent can
cause cracking in certain alloys such as admiralty brass. 40 Cooling tower film fill is less tolerant
than splash fill to degraded waters. 40 Temporal variation is waste water treatment effluent can
create problems. Treatment technologies include reverse osmosis, ion exchange and evaporative
processes. There are energy and dollar costs associated with the additional treatment required by
the use of degraded waters, which create a research need to develop more energy and dollar
efficient treatment technologies.
There are numerous factors associated with the transport of degraded waters from their source to
the power plant. These include pump requirements and costs, pipeline materials and costs,
installation costs, pipe routing, water chemistry, secondary containment systems, pretreatment
prior to pumping, system redundancy for reliability, shutoff valves, access shafts and pipe
cleaning. As with additional treatment, transport creates energy and dollar costs.
Issues with respect to acquisition of alternate water sources include volume and quality
guarantees, water rights of other stakeholders, who pays for delivery, will other users share the
source and delivery system, backup source in case of system failure, length of contract, present
and future competition for the source, and cost. Examples of acquisition costs for waste water
treatment plant effluent are $0.15-0.26 per thousand gallons in Chandler, Arizona and $3.04 per
thousand gallons in Cary, North Carolina. 40 As with freshwater acquisition costs, acquisition
costs for degraded waters are not necessarily correlated to imbalances in supply and demand of
freshwater. In addition, there are important energy implications from using reclaimed or saline
water because of the need for it to be treated and transported.66-68 In some cases the waste
treatment plants can capture energy thereby mitigating these effects. 69 As a major electricity
user, water treatment plants can be integrated into transmission planning.
USEPA has suggested guidelines for water reuse for industrial cooling but not regulations. A few
states do have regulations; California, Florida, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas and Utah. States
having guidelines but no regulations are Hawaii, New Jersey and Washington. 40 Regulatory
issues include quality, treatment, monitoring, treatment facility reliability, storage and setback
distances.
NEED: The evaluation process of alternate water supplies is very complicated and involves
numerous factors which interact in multiple ways. After one has located a possible water source
for a power plant that has a fixed location and determined that both quantity and quality are
59
acceptable, there are multiple transport, treatment and operating variables to consider. Clearly
the overall evaluation process would benefit from the availability of a decision support system. If
one is considering the construction of a new power facility, so that location is now a variable,
possible decisions increase exponentially. Now, not only is the location a variable but also the
type of generation and overall plant design, all of which determine the water needs of the plant.
The decision support system, is only as good as the data base upon which it rests; hence it needs
as much data as possible regarding location and quality of degraded water sources, treatment
technologies, power plant water demands (quantity and quality), power plant water conserving
technologies and strategies, degraded water transport systems, degraded water acquisition costs
and relevant regulations. Currently there are no off the shelf tools available to do such an
integrated analysis.
PROPOSED WORK: Analysis of water availability in EPWSim will be expanded to include

non-potable resources. Here we will make use of the extensive analyses by EPRI; basically,
integrating the results into EPWSim. Integration will require considerable data manipulation,
interpretation, scaling and development of key relational algorithms. Expanding on this work,
INL will conduct a search for other federal and state GIS coverages and databases on brackish,
produced, and waste water, to assess their viability and, where appropriate, incorporate that
information into the EWDSS. We will likewise integrate the energy-water-desalination work of
UT.
Deliverable 4.4.1: Integrate the non-potable source data into EPWSim

Responsible Partner: EPRI
Start Date: December 1, 2010
End Date: March 1, 2012
Budget: $74K
Deliverable 4.4.2: Integrate non-potable source data beyond that collected by EPRI into
EPWSIM
Start Date: January 4, 2011
Budget: $20K
Deliverable 4.4.3: Collect non-potable source data for Texas (wastewater, produced water
and saline groundwater)
Start Date: January 4, 2011
Budget: $20K
60
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This task will enable interconnection
planning to take advantage of utilizing alternate water sources in designing the electric power
infrastructure of the future. The project results will enable evaluation of changes in the
infrastructure to take greater advantage of alternate water sources in an energy and dollar
efficient manner.
Subtask 4.5: Water Institutions Tool.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: Physical availability of (wet) water alone is
insufficient to assure that water will be available for power production needs. In general, a water
right or permit issued by the state is required to use water in the western U.S. In many basins in
the west, especially in arid regions with large and growing populations, water is already fully
allocated (and in some cases over-allocated) to existing uses, requiring that water for new uses
must be transferred from existing uses. The price of water rights is also increasing rapidly in
some of these areas.
The laws and processes governing water rights, permits, and transfers are complex and vary
widely by state.70 In many areas, additional local or basin-specific rules apply as well.71 Native
American tribes often hold the largest most-senior water rights with their own sets of rules.
Unless a tribe has received U.S. congressional approval, tribal water rights may generally not be
used outside tribal lands.72
In many basins in the west, water rights have not been adjudicated, leaving large uncertainties in
the validity or certainty of rights. Legal protests by other rights holders are also increasing in
some basins. Navigating the various processes to acquiring water for a new use can be an
expensive and time consuming process, and particularly where transfers are involved there are no
guarantees that the investment of time and money will result in success.73
To date efforts to look broadly across states at the complicated and varied institutional controls
pertaining to water use has not been accomplished. The closest has been a review conducted by
the GAO,74 which provides a preliminary analysis of differences in permitting requirements for
power plant siting across the U.S. This review was very narrow in its focus and only looked at a
few selected states.
NEED: While such information is available from each state, it has not been compiled in a
uniform and searchable format. An effort is currently needed to compile this information for
individual states, WSWC and WGA and integrate it within the broader context of the EWDSS.
PROPOSED WORK: This task will build on efforts by the WSWC and the individual states to
define and catalogue the myriad of institutions and policies governing water withdrawal. As a
61
first step we will work closely with the WSWC, WGA and cooperative modeling team (CMT) to
assess and map the major institutional controls that govern state water rights in the west.
Working with this same team we will prioritize and/or identify the set of institutional controls
most important to interconnection wide planning. We will then work to make these priority
institutions and controls accessible to the planning process. For any given location, the mapping
tool will identify what state-level water rights regimes are in place for surface water and
groundwater, the extent to which the water rights have been adjudicated, and what additional
controls may apply, such as those relating to Tribal lands, acequias, irrigation districts, or special
water districts. The tool will identify which basins are closed to future appropriation and indicate
what rules are in place for water transfers. If feasible, the tool may incorporate information about
water conflict in the basin, using the number of water-related lawsuits or other suitable metric.
The tool will also identify basins where some or all water use is subject to interstate compact
limitations.
While the mapping tool will be valuable for visualizing how key institutional controls vary by
state and basin, there is a need to synthesize this information into a single integrated metric (e.g.,
a single map aggregating the multiple institutional layers into one value). Calculation of this
metric is likely to involve some particular weighting and aggregating of the individual
institutional measures (e.g., water rights regimes, degree of adjudication, Tribal lands). The
weights applied to the individual measures are expected to be a matter of different opinion across
stakeholders. For this reason the EWDSS will be designed to allow different weights to be
applied and thus their impact on the integrated metric assessed. Thus, the goal is to develop the
EWDSS so as to provide a venue for visualizing each institutional measure as well as a means of
synthesizing the data into a single metric with the option to use personally derived weights. The
resulting information will provide a basis for comparing water basins in terms of the expected
difficulty in obtaining necessary permitting/water rights to support future expansion in electric
power generation.
Development of the water institutions tool will be pursued in a manner consistent with that used
in Subtask 3.1 and 4.1. Specifically, it is proposed that Sandia National Laboratories begin with
three or four western states as part of a pilot project to extract information available from state
water managers regarding institutional controls related to water allocation. The purpose of this
pilot effort will be to better understand the types of information available from state water
managers, to determine the level of effort necessary to extract the information, and determine
how best to vet the results with respective state water managers.
Given the complexity of this effort and the fact that such a tool has not been developed before
there is some uncertainty whether it is possible to accomplish this task. As such, results of the
pilot project will be reviewed by the WSWC, WGA, WECC and ERCOT to determine whether
the developed tool and data is of sufficient value to the project to extend to the other states. If
62
there is not interest in extending the work then efforts toward Deliverables 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 will be
discontinued and the funds redirected to more pressing issues. Alternatively, if this activity is
pursued then the water institutions tool will be extended to half the remaining western states
under Deliverable 4.5.2 with the remaining half finalized under Deliverable 4.5.3.
Sandia will lead the effort to develop the water institutions tool. The University of Texas will
support this effort with data collection and synthesis associated with the ERCOT region, while
INL will support data collection and synthesis for states in the Northwest U.S.
Deliverable 4.5.1: Water institutions tool: Phase I

Responsible Partner: Sandia National Laboratories with support from INL
Start Date October 1, 2010
Budget: $125K
Deliverable 4.5.2: Water institutions tool: Phase II

Responsible Partner: Sandia National Laboratories with support from INL
Start Date April 4, 2011
Budget: $125K
Deliverable 4.5.3: Water institutions tool: Final

Start Date April 3, 2012
Milestone(s): April 1, 2013
Budget: $100K
Deliverable 4.5.4: Water institutions tool in Texas

Start Date: April 4, 2011
Budget: $15K
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: The varied and complex web of laws and
rules governing water allocation and use can pose formidable financial and legal challenges to
the siting of new energy facilities and in some cases to the operation of existing facilities. This
task will provide for the development of a Water Institutions Tool that will enable an initial
assessment of the institutional hurdles a potential project is likely to encounter as a function of
location. The Water Institutions Tool will be integrated with the water availability model (Task
4.1) so that the user can determine which locations might be best suited for a project from both a
63
wet water and paper water perspective. It will also be used to assess prospective locations to
determine whether there are likely hurdles to particular projects and will provide an initial
assessment regarding locations to be avoided.
References
1. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978, The Nation’s Water Resources: 1975-2000, Second
National Assessment, U.S. Government Printing Office.
2. Brown, T.C., 1999. Past and Future Freshwater Use in the United States: A Technical
Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RMRS-FTR-39, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 47pp.
3. Guldin, R.W., 1989. An Analysis of the Water Situation in the United States: 1989-2040.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-FTR-177, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 178 pp.
4. Roy, S.B., K. Summers, C. Chung, and J. Raddle, 2003. A survey of water use and
sustainability in the United States with a focus on power generation, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA.
5. Hurd, B., N. Leary, R. Jones and J. Smith, 1999, Relative regional vulnerability of water
resources to climate change, Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
35(6), 1399-1409.
6. Roy, S.B., Ricci, P.F., Summers, K.V., Chung, C.-F., and Goldstein, R.A., 2005.
Evaluation of the sustainability of water withdrawals in the United States, 1995 to 2025,
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 1091-1108.
7. Natural Resources Defense Council, Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water
Demands in 2050 under Climate Change Scenarios, July 2010. available at:
http://rd.tetratech.com/climatechange/projects/nrdc_climate.asp
30(11), 11-51.
11. Tidwell, V.C., P.H. Kobos, L. Malczynski, G. Klise and W. Hart, 2009, Decision Support
for Integrated Water-Energy Planning, SAND Report, SAND2009, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
12. Stewart, D.W., A. Rea and D.M Wolock, 2006, USGS Streamgages Linked to the
Medium Resolution NHD Geospatial Data Presentation Form: Vector Digital Data. US
Geological Survey DS-195, data available at:
http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML /streamgages.xml#stdorder
13. Ongoing project: The U.S. Geological Survey through the Secure Water Act will be
conducting a nation-wide census of water use. This new and expanded water census was
initiated earlier this year. We have already made contact with the management of this
USGS project (Eric Evenson Trenton, NJ). We will coordinate activities to the extent
possible and use the USGS data as it becomes available (most of this data is gathered
directly from the states, see project citation above).
64
14. Western Governors’ Association, Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future:
2010 Progress Report, June 2010. Review the events and activities that have taken place
over the past two years in implementing various recommendations in the Western
Governs’ Association’s 2006 and 2008 Water Reports.
15. Hall, D.G., Cherry, S.J. Cherry, Reeves, K.S., Lee, R.D., Carroll, G.R., Sommers, G.L.,
Verdin, K.L. (2004). Water Energy Resources of the United States with Emphasis on
Low Head/Low Power Resources, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, Idaho, April 2004.
16. USGS 2010. Technical Announcement: Developing a Way to Monitor the Nation’s
Groundwater Resources, USGS Newsroom, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston Virginia.
17. SGW 2009. A National Framework for Ground-Water Monitoring in the United States,
the Subcommittee on Ground Water of The Advisory Committee on Water Information,
Washington DC, June 2009
18. DOI 2009. National Atlas.gov; Where We Are, U.S Department of Interior, Washington
DC, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater
19. Estimated Use of Water in the United States: Water use in the United States:
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/50years.html
20. Stonestrom, D.A., Constantz, J., Ferré, T.P.A., and Leake, S.A., 2007. Ground-Water
Recharge in the Arid and Semiarid Southwestern United States (Professional Paper
1703), U.S. Geological Survey, Reston Virginia.
21. Sun, R.J., Weeks, J.B. and Grubb, H.F., 1997. Bibliography of Regional Aquifer-System
Analysis Program of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1978-96, (Water-Resources
Investigations Report 97-4074), U.S. Geological Survey, Reston Virginia.
22. Reilly, T.E., Dennehy, K.F., Alley, W.M., and Cunningham, W.L., 2008, Ground-Water
Availability in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1323, 70 p.
23. USGS 2008. Ground-Water Availability Assessment for the Columbia Plateau Regional
Aquifer System, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, Fact Sheet 2008-3086,
24. Qi, S.L., and Christenson, Scott, 2010, Assessing groundwater availability in the High
Plains aquifer in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010–3008 (Revised
March 2010), 4 p.
25. Anderson, Mark T., and Woosley, Lloyd H., Jr., 2005, Water availability for the Western
United States--Key scientific challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1261, 85 p.
26. Alley, W.M. Desalination of ground water: earth science perspectives. USGS Fact Sheet
075-03.
27. Asano, T., Ed. (1998), Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.
28. Asano T., F.L. Burton, H.L. Leverenz, R. Tsuchihashi, G. Tchobanoglous, 2007. Water
Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
29. Blackhurst, M., C. Hendrickson, J.S.I. Vidal. 2010. Direct and indirect water withdrawals
for U.S. industrial sectors. Environmental Science and Technology 44: 2126-30.
30. Cadmus 2006, “2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment—
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure” The Cadmus Group, Inc., June 2006
31. California State Water Resources Control Board. 1975. Water Quality Control Policy on
the Use and Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Powerplant Cooling. SWRCB
Resolution No. 75-58.
65
32. California Department of Health and Safety (DHS), 2001. California Health Laws
Related to Recycled Water. Excerpts from the Health and Safety Code, Water Code, and
Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
33. California Department of Health and Safety (DHS), 2004. Treatment Technology Report
for Recycled Water.
34. Clark, C.E., J.A. Veil. 2009. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices.
Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/EVS/R-09/a
35. CVRWCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2007. Discharge
from Irrigated Lands-Monitoring Activity. Available at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/monitoring_activity/i
ndex.html.
36. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2003a. A Survey of Water Use and
Sustainability in the United States With a Focus on Power Generation, Washington, DC:
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Report No. 1005474.
37. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2003b. Use of Degraded Water Sources as
Cooling Water in Power Plants, prepared for the California Energy Commission by the
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Report No. 1005359, October. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2004-02-23_500-03-110.PDF.
38. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2007. Program on Technology Innovation:
Water Resources for Thermoelectric Power Generation: Produced Water Resources, Wet-
Surface Air Cooling, and WARMF Decision Support Framework. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA
and USDOE, Morgantown, WV: 2006. 1014487.
39. EPRI(Electric Power Research Institute. 2008a. Water Use for Electric Power
Generation. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. Report No. 1014026.
40. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute. 2008b. Use of Alternate Water Sources for
Power Plant Cooling. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. Report No. 1014935.
41. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute. In review. Evaluation of Stormwater as a
Resource for Power Plant Cooling.
42. Fuse, N.R., L.C. Brown, H.W. Belcher, R.S. Kanwar. 1995. Drainage and water quality
in Great Lakes and Cornbelt States. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
121(4): 283-288.
43. Feth, J.H., and others, 1965, Preliminary map of the conterminous United States showing
depth to and quality of shallowest ground water containing more than 1,000 parts per
million dissolved solids: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-
199.
44. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Reuse of Reclaimed Water and
Land Application Chapter 62-610 effective 03/09/06.
45. Hawaii Department of Health, Wastewater Branch, 2002. Guidelines for the Treatment
and Use of Recycled Water.
46. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Commission of Water Resources
Management, 2005. Hawaii Water Reuse Survey and Report.
47. HDR. 1992. “Standardized Costs for Water Supply Distribution Systems” HDR
Engineering, Inc., January.
48. Huff, G.F. 2004. Review of knowledge on the occurrence, chemical composition, and
potential use for desalination of saline ground water in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas
with a discussion of potential future study needs. USGS open-file report 2004-1197.
66
49. Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin,
M.A., 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1344, 52 p., available on the internet at:
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/
50. Kirkland. 2006. Kirkland Pump Station Upgrade Project, Task 220 Amendment to
Predesign Report, Prepared by Tetra Tech for King County Department of Natural
Resources, Wastewater Treatment Division, October, 2006
51. Land, L., P. Johnson, A. Watkins, J. Hawley. 2004. New Mexico groundwater assessment
program workshop. Report of findings and recommendation. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
52. LBG-Guyton Associates. 2003. Brackish groundwater manual for Texas regional water
groups: Report prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas,
Available at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/2001483395.pdf.
53. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Quality, 2005.
Reclaimed Water for Beneficial Uses.
54. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Regulations Pertaining to the use of
Reclaimed Water (Treated Effluent) from Sewage Treatment Plants.
55. Tanji, K.K., N.C. Kielen. 2002. Agricultural drainage water management in arid and
semi-arid areas. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. pp 205.
56. Tetra Tech, 2006. Technical Report prepared for the King County Department of Natural
Resources, Wastewater Treatment Division.
57. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and USAID (U.S. Agency for
International Development), 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/625/R-04/108.
58. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2005. Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey and Assessment, Final Report to Congress, EPA 816-R-05-001.
59. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2002. Produced Waters Database, available on the
internet at: http://envery.cr.ugsgs.gov/prov/prodwat/index.htm.
60. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2009. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in
2005, available on the internet at: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/.
61. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005. Water-quality data from two agricultural drainage
basins in Northwestern Indiana and Northeastern Illinois: I. Lagrangian and Synoptic
data, 1999-2002. USGS open-file report 2004-1317.
62. Utah Division of Water Resources, 2005. Water Reuse in Utah in the Utah State Water
Plan.
63. Veil, J.A., M.G. Puder, D. Elcock, and R. J. Redweik. 2004. A white paper describing
produced water from production of crude oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane. U.S.
Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory.
64. Veil, J.A. 2007. Use of reclaimed water for power plant cooling. U.S. Department of
Energy Technology Laboratory. ANL/EVS/R-07/3.
65. Washington State Department of Health and Department of Ecology, 1997. Water
Reclamation and Reuse Standards. Publication #97-23.
66. A.S. Stillwell, C.W. King and M.E. Webber, “Desalination And Long-Haul Water
Transfer A Case Study Of The Energy-Water Nexus In Texas,” Texas Water Journal (in
press).
67. A.S. Stillwell and M.E. Webber, “Feasibility Of Wind Power For Brackish Groundwater
Desalination: A Case Study Of The Energy-Water Nexus In Texas,” Proceedings of the
ASME 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Phoenix, AZ, 2010.
67
68. A.S. Stillwell and M.E. Webber, “Water Conservation and Reuse: A Case Study of the
Energy-Water Nexus in Texas,” World Environmental and Water Resources Congress
2010, American Society of Civil Engineers, Providence Rhode Island, 2010.
69. A.S. Stillwell, D.C. Hoppock and M.E. Webber, “Energy Recovery from Wastewater
Treatment Plants in the United States: A Case Study of the Energy-Water Nexus,”
Sustainability (special issue Energy Policy and Sustainability) Vol. 2(4), 945-962 (2010).
70. National Research Council (NRC), 1992, Water Science and Technology Board. Water
Transfers in the West. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
71. Thompson Jr., Barton H. "Institutional Perspectives on Water Policy and Markets."
California Law Review 81, no. 3 (1993): 673-764.
72. Colby, Bonnie G., John E. Thorson, and Sarah Britton, 2005, Negotiating Tribal Water
Rights: Fulfilling Promises in the Arid West. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
73. Richards E. H., 2008, Over-allocation and the doctrine of prior appropriation: Water
rights settlement agreements in New Mexico: Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University,
Palo Alto, California, 242 pp
74. GAO (General Accounting Office), 2009, ENERGY-WATER NEXUS Improvements to
Federal Water Use Data Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water
Use. GAO-10-23, Washington, D.C.
68
Task 10: Study Case Analysis
PURPOSE: The purpose of this task is to support the Western and Texas Interconnections in
their responsibilities for identifying potential implications of water stress related to transmission
and resource planning. This effort will proceed by utilizing the Energy Water DSS (EWDSS) to
evaluate alternative future Study Cases developed by WECC, WGA and ERCOT. Sandia will
lead the Study Case analysis task for WECC and WGA, while the University of Texas will lead
analyses for ERCOT. The entire project team will participate in Study Case exercises for both
interconnections.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Using energy production Study Cases

developed by WGA, WECC, and ERCOT we will calculate the water stress implications and
report results back to our interconnection partners.
TASK BUDGET: $155K
Subtask 10.1: Study Case Development.

CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: There have been a number of recent studies
exploring the nexus between energy and water. Numerous DOE laboratories collaborated to
prepare the Report to Congress.1 This report looked broadly at the energy-water nexus,
describing the various ways in which water is used in energy production and provided high-level
estimates of the intensity of water use. To address emerging energy and water interdependency
challenges identified in the Report, Congress directed the DOE in 2005 to “initiate planning and
creation of a water-for-energy roadmap”. This roadmapping process relied heavily on
stakeholder input gathered through three regional needs workshops and two technology
identification workshops. Almost 500 stakeholders from over 40 states participated in the five
Energy-Water workshops representing a broad range of energy and water agencies, developers,
regulators, users, managers, utilities, industry, and academia. Participant input and suggestions
were used to define the future research, development, demonstration, and commercialization
efforts needed to adequately address emerging water-related challenges to future, cost-effective,
reliable, and sustainable energy generation and production.2
To support these previous studies with quantitative data, NETL prepared a series of reports
estimating water withdrawals and consumption associated with thermoelectric power
generation.3-5 Their analyses extend to the year 2030 and considered a variety of cases that differ
according to the mix of fuel and cooling type employed in the future thermoelectric power plant
fleet. These analyses were performed on a 13-NERC region basis (including 3 WECC
subregions) spanning the entire continental US. The study did not consider water for other
energy production needs such as transportation fuels.
69
Using county-level data on rates of population growth, utility estimates of future planned
electricity capacity additions in the contiguous United States, and scientific estimates of
anticipated water shortages, 22 counties were identify as the most likely locations of severe
shortages brought about by thermoelectric capacity additions.6-8 While these studies raise
important issues and potential solutions, they are limited to a narrow set of assumptions and only
consider thermoelectric water use.
Through interviews with subject experts, the GAO recently published a report on the energy-
water nexus.9 From these interviews they made three overarching conclusions. First, advanced
cooling technologies that rely on air to cool part or all of the steam used in generating electricity
and alternative water sources such as treated effluent can reduce freshwater use by
thermoelectric power plants. Second, oversight of water use by thermoelectric facilities varies by
state and is influenced by state water laws, related state regulatory policies, and additional layers
of state regulatory review. Third, improvements to Federal water use data would increase
understanding of the trends in power plant water use.
Recently Sandia, INL and DOE’s Office of Policy and International Affairs have teamed to
investigate the water supply implications of growth in the thermoelectric power industry.10 This
effort will utilize EPWSim to provide an interactive analysis environment for exploring the
nexus between future water supplies and impacts associated with various energy technologies
from a national and regional perspective. We will also utilize data from INL’s Virtual
Hydropower prospector to enhance the scope of analysis. In this exercise efforts will largely
focus on analyses with no real model integration or improvements to the models or data. The
scope of analysis includes the entire U.S.
The Union of Concerned Scientist is in the process of developing a project to look at

implications of the energy-water nexus.11 In particular they intend to explore prior analyses on
energy production options (improved electricity conservation and expanded renewable) to
evaluate how such approaches could help mitigate energy sector growth impacts on water stress.
We have been collaborating with the project team as they work to frame the problem and
evaluate alternative modeling and analysis options.
Beyond these nation-wide efforts to explore the energy-water nexus, several regional analyses
have been conducted and/or are in progress. The Environmental Defense Fund and Western
Resource Advocates conducted an overview of the Energy-Water Nexus in the West. This study
relied on existing data and analyses to promote seven water/energy/planning policies aimed at
mitigating future problems.12 Texas13 and California14 each have conduced state specific
analyses of the implications of expanding water needs for thermoelectric cooling and its potential
to lead to water stress within each state. Similarly, the Great Lakes Commission,15 supported by
Sandia, EPRI, and Argonne, is sponsoring a study to investigate alternative futures for electric
70
power generation in this region and their implications on water supply and environmental
quality.
Several models have likewise been developed to analyze the interplay of thermoelectric power
production and water resources at the regional scale. EPRI has developed a framework to
evaluate water demands and availability for electrical power production on a watershed basis.16
This framework to date has been applied to a handful of basins across the U.S. Other studies
include the investigation of wind driven groundwater pumping to shed excess electrical power
production by local wind farms.17 Similarly, detailed modeling of water-energy tradeoffs on the
American River in California,18 a small closed watershed and water-power tradeoffs in
watersheds19-21 in Texas have likewise been investigated.
NEED: From this brief review it is apparent that numerous energy and water studies have been
conducted to date. Certainly the data and analyses will be very valuable to this effort as we move
forward. The limitation of these studies and tools is that the broad scale studies do not contain
the level of spatial detail needed for this analysis (studies are at national or a multi-state regional
basis). Most of these studies focus on a single aspect of the problem (e.g., thermoelectric water
use). Also, these studies are not focused on issues specific to WECC and ERCOT transmission
planning. This subtask is designed to coordinate efforts between this modeling team and the
WECC and ERCOT planning teams.
There are also several detailed studies that focus on a specific region or watershed. These studies
are limited in that they do not give a consistent and comprehensive view of the entire Western
U.S. Extending these detailed regional analyses to the entire Western U.S. is not practical given
the available resources nor are the necessary data available for every watershed. However, to the
extent practical we will work to cooperate with ongoing regional analyses.
PROPOSED WORK: Development of Study Cases to be evaluated with the Energy-Water DSS
will be the responsibility of WECC, WGA, ERCOT and their associated stakeholder teams. We
will work with our interconnection partners through the CMT to support Study Case formulation
exercises. In particular, this will involve communicating the limitations of the model, as well as
negotiating modifications to the model (within the scope of this proposal) to facilitate the desired
range of analyses. In addition, results from early analyses will be available to our interconnection
partners to assist in refining subsequent Study Case conditions. Study Cases will largely be
defined by the output of the interconnection wide transmission planning process; specifically, the
distribution of power production over the entire interconnections. This includes operations of
existing facilities as well as new capacity necessary to meet growing demand.
As the project evolves, so to will the nature of the Study Cases. For the WECC, the 2010 Study
Program is already well underway. Here we will simply support the ongoing process as well as
71
establish procedures for coordinating analyses and support between the modeling team, WECC,
WGA and WSWC. In year 2 (2011-2012 Study Program and Long-term Scenario Driven
Studies), the project team will work with interconnection partners more closely in the
development of generation and transmission Study Cases. In particular, we will work with the
WECC Study Work Group to help to inform the siting and technology mix of new generation
based on our assessment of water resource impacts. In addition, we will provide input on a
sustained drought or climate change scenario, based on our work under Task 6 of our proposal,
for which we are scheduled to develop a scope of work in November 2010.
Deliverable 10.1.1: Study Case development
Responsible Partner: All partners will participate in developing Study Cases. This activity will
proceed throughout the full duration of the project.
End Date: A set of Study Cases will be developed annually. For WECC Study
Requests are due by January 31 of each year. For ERCOT all analyses
must be completed by August 2012.
Budget: Budget is captured under activity 1.2.1 Project Coordination.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: Coordinated planning Study Case

development between this modeling team, WGA, WECC and ERCOT.
Subtask 10.2: Study Case Analysis.

NEED: Currently WECC and ERCOT transmission planning processes do not analyze impacts
on water resources. Specifically, an integrated tool set encompassing broad water related issues
is not available for quantitative analysis.
PROPOSED WORK: Study Cases developed by WECC, WGA, and ERCOT will be submitted
to the project team for analysis. Simulations with the EWDSS will be performed and the results
reported back to our interconnection partners. Study Case analysis will provide insight on such
factors as: water withdrawal and consumption for thermoelectric power production (locally and
interconnection wide); increased demand across other water use sectors; impact of increased
water use on water availability; alternative water supply options; potential water policy
constraints; as well as many other metrics and or combination of metrics. In addition, for
ERCOT, Study Cases that had been independently-developed by the UT team22-23 will also be
considered for examination.
In most cases, Study Case development and analysis will proceed in an iterative fashion. That is
feedback on water availability will influence transmission planning conditions, which when
adjusted will change the water stress landscape. The interactive nature of the DSS will allow
Study Case analysis to be conducted directly with the planning teams. That is the DSS interface
72
will facilitate direct adjustment of Study Case conditions, model simulation, and reporting of
results in real-time in a workshop or focus group setting.
WECC, WGA, and ERCOT will be engaged in transmission planning exercises throughout the
entire three year project period. In fact, early stages of Study Case development are currently in
progress in both the WECC and ERCOT. These early stage analyses will be accommodated with
EPWSim in its current state of development. As EPWSim and the broader EWDSS mature so too
will our capacity to comment on the broader aspects (e.g., the additions to EPWSim/EWDSS
outlined in the project proposal and accompanying scopes of work) of the Study Case analysis.
But the positive aspect is that we can accommodate a basic level of Study Case analysis from the
very beginning of the project.
Deliverable 10.2.1: WECC Study Case analysis

End Date: Deliver Study Case results to interconnection partners. For WECC Phase I
results will be delivered by March 25, 2011, Phase II results by December
24, 2011, Phase III results by December 24, 2012 and final results by
December 24, 2013.
Budget: $90K.
Deliverable 10.2.2: ERCOT Study Case analysis

End Date: Initial results will be delivered by March 25, 2011, followed by
intermediate analyses by December 24, 2011. Final analyses are to be
completed by August 2012.
Budget: $45K.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This task will provide quantitative

analyses concerning the water implications of various interconnection wide planning Study
Cases explored by WECC and ERCOT.
Subtask 10.3: Training.

NEED: The EWDSS is being developed in such a way that it is directly accessible to all project
participants, thus allowing them the flexibility of exploring particular Study Cases of personal
interest. This will allow stakeholders the opportunity to explore and learn from Study Cases
beyond those studied under Subtask 10.2.
73
PROPOSED WORK: Our goal is to develop a DSS that is easily accessible to project partners,
in terms of both computer platform and the interface with which the user interacts with the tool.
As such, we will provide our partners with the option of conducting Study Case analysis on their
own. This will potentially allow a wide range of stakeholders to test their personal Study Cases
and learn from the exercise. To facilitate this exchange, training workshops will be offered to
provide interested stakeholders the EWDSS operational skills they will need to perform Study
Case analysis. The UT Austin team is already engaged in training hundreds of professionals
annually through executive education and CEU (Continuing Education Unit) coursework for
professional engineers, policymakers, entrepreneurs, lawyers, accountants and analysts; it will be
straightforward to include the EWDSS training in future short courses.
Deliverable 10.3.1: WECC Training

Start Date: March 1, 2013
Budget: $10K.
Deliverable 10.3.2: ERCOT Training

Start Date: March 1, 2012
Budget: $10K.
BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This effort will provide interested

stakeholders the opportunity to learn how to operate the EWDSS on their own to explore Study
Cases of personal interest.
References
1. U.S. DOE, 2006, Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the
Interdependency of Energy and Water, December 2006.
2. http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/ Website documenting National Laboratory Energy-
Water Nexus road mapping exercise. A full summary of the exercise and workshop notes
are available. The roadmap report is currently in review at DOE.
3. Feeley, T.J., T.J. Skone, G.J. Stiegel, A McNemar, M. Nemeth, B. Schimmoller, J.T.
Murphy, L. Manfredo, 2007, Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power
industry. Energy, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2007.08.007.
Requirements, 2008 Update. DOE/NETL- 400/2008/1339, 2008.
Requirements. DOE/NETL-400/2007/1304, 2007.
74
30(11), 11-51.
9. GAO (General Accounting Office), 2003. Freshwater supply: States’ views on how
federal agencies could help them meet challenge of expected shortages. GAO-03-514,
Washington, D.C. available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03514.pdf.
10. DOE OPIA, Craig Zamuda project manager, initiated July 2010, CCTP Task 5: Future
Water Supplies and Impacts.
11. Union of Concern Scientist, John Rogers project Manager, project is in the formation
stage.
12. Environmental Defense Fund and Western Resource Advocates, Protecting the Lifeline
of the West: How Climate and Clean Energy Policies can Safeguard Water, 2010.
13. A.S. Stillwell, C.W. King, I.J. Duncan, M.E. Webber and A. Hardberger, “The Energy
Water nexus in Texas,” Environmental Defense Fund and the University of Texas at
Austin, April 2009. http://www.edf.org/documents/9479_Energy-
WaterNexusinTexasApr2009.pdf
14. California Energy Commission, Comparison of Alternate Cooling Technologies for
California Power Plants: Economic, Environmental and Other Tradeoffs, Consultant
Report, 500-02-079F, February 2002. This study defines, explains, and documents the
cost, performance, and environmental impacts of both wet and dry cooling systems.
Conceptual designs are developed for wet and dry cooling systems as applied to a new,
gas-fired, combined-cycle 500-MW plant (170 MW produced by the steam turbine) at
four sites chosen to be representative of conditions in California.
15. Great Lakes Commission, project manager Victoria Pebbles, project initiated in March
2010, Energy-Water Nexus in the Great Lakes Region.
16. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), 2005. Framework to Evaluate Water Demands
and Availability for Electrical Power Production within Watersheds Across the United
States: Development and Applications. EPRI, Palo Alto, California.
17. Wigmasta, M. and R. Skaggs, A pilot study of water-energy-agriculture integration in the
Yakima River Basin. 2010 UCOWR Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, July 13-15, 2010.
18. Larry Dale, Linked water and energy modeling of the American River System, 2010
UCOWR Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, July 13-15, 2010.
19. A.S. Stillwell, M.E. Clayton, M.E. Webber, “A River Basin-Based Model of Advanced
Power Plant Cooling Technologies for Mitigating Water Management Challenges,”
AIChE 20010 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, 2010.
20. C. W. King, M. E. Webber and I. J. Duncan, “Water Demand Projections for Power
Generation in Texas,” prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, September
75
2008.
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/data/socio/est/Final_pwr.pdf
21. M.E. Clayton, A.S. Stillwell and M.E. Webber, “A Model of Implementing Advanced
Power Plant Cooling Technologies to Mitigate Water Management Challenges in Texas
River Basins,” ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2010.
22. M.C. Lott and M.E. Webber, “Evaluation of H.R. 2454’s Potential Impacts on Texas’s
Electricity Profile Using the Rosenfeld Effect as a Basis for Evaluation,” Proceedings of
the ASME 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Phoenix, AZ, 2010.
23. M.E. Webber, D.T. Allen, K. Ferland, C.W. King, G.T. McGaughey, S.J. Goldman, Y.
Kimura, “A Clean Energy Plan for Texas,” prepared for the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, August 2008.
76

EWWTI_PM_Plan_2010-8382P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EWWTI_PM_Plan_2010-8382P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EWWTI_PM_Plan_2010-8382P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Energy and Water in the Western and Texas Interconnects

October 15, 2010

WORK PERFORMED UNDER AGREEMENT

Sandia National Laboratories

PO Box 5800; MS1377

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-1377

U.S. Department of Energy

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Title: ARRA Reporting

Title: Complete Project Scope of Work (SOW): Phase I

Title: Complete Project Management Plan (PMP)

Title: Establish project website

Title: Establish CMT

Title: Integrate CCS module into the EPWSim model.

Title: Water institutions tool: Phase I

Title: Plant level estimates of water withdrawal/consumption in Texas

Title: Biofuel-EPWSim model integration.

Title: Plant level estimates of water withdrawal/consumption

Title: Link saline sinks to the CCS module

Title: Update surface water supply metrics for Texas

Title: Hourly water use calculator

Title: Integrate the non-potable source data into EPWSim

Title: Water institutions tool: Phase II

Title: Climate change and policy implications in the West

Title: Water institutions tool in Texas

Title: Hourly water use calculator

Title: Parasitic energy requirements for cooling systems

Title: ERCOT Training

Title: Geographic locations for energy crops

Title: Estimate water use for energy crops in Texas

Title: ERCOT Scenario analysis

Title: Update surface water supply metrics

Title: WECC Training

Title: Integrate the VHP into EPWSim

Title: Maintain project website

Title: WECC Scenario analysis

4. Funding and Costing Profile

7. Agreement Statement of Project Objectives

Transparent: Documented in sufficient detail as to purpose, method, assumptions,

Reproducible: Documenting the development of an analysis or model in sufficient detail

3.0 Graded Approach

Role Project Responsibility

6.0 Quality Improvement

7.0 Documents and Records

8.0 Work Processes

11.0 Inspection and Acceptance Testing

• Internal institutional processes are used to identify qualified personnel.

12.0 Management Assessment

Risk Category Mission Execution, Loss of Customer, public confidence

o Adverse impact on Sandia’s programmatic performance

o Adverse public opinion – moderate interest, limited PR

Inherent Risk Level High (Likelihood * Consequence)

Risk Control Project Performance Baseline Change Control.

Performance Measures Performance milestones will be individually identified and tracked

13.0 Independent Assessment

Licensing Revenue Allocations

Task 1: Project Management

BENEFIT TO INTERCONNECTION PLANNING: This task is necessary to maintain strong

TASK BUDGET: $407K