Piloting Utility Modeling Applications
(PUMA)
David Behar
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Water Utility Climate Alliance
Water Utility Climate Alliance
n
n
n
n
n
Seattle Public
Utilities
Portland Water
Bureau
San Francisco
Public Utilities
Commission
Metropolitan
Water District of
Southern
California
San Diego
County Water
Authority
n
n
n
Denver Water
Southern
Nevada Water
Authority
Central Arizona
Project
n
n
New York City
Department of
Environmental
Protection
Tampa Bay Water
WUCA is a consortium of water providers serving
ten of the country’s large metropolitan regions,
working together “to improve research into the
impacts of climate change on water utilities,
develop strategies for adapting to climate change,
and implement tactics to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.”
We deliver water to 43 million Americans.
Climate
Model(s)
Watershed
Model(s)
Systems/Operations
Model(s)
Policy
Planning
Decision Making
Infrastructure
Planning
PUMA Project Objectives
• Identify state-of-the-art climate modeling tools and
techniques for use in pilot assessments
• Articulate the uncertainties and the implications of those
uncertainties for planning
• Acquire climate projection data in a form and scale that
can be used by downstream utility tools
• Build national RISA collaboration via relationships across
the four pilot regions
• Inform national dialogue regarding how current climate
science meets or doesn’t meet assessment needs of users
• Develop climate services best practices
PUMA Participants
Five Utilities
San Francisco PUC
Seattle Public Utilities
Tampa Bay Water
Portland Water Bureau
New York City DEP
Four RISAs
Cal-Neva (Scripps – Cayan, Dettinger)
NE (Columbia, et al – Palmer, Horton)
SE (Univ of Fla, FSU – Graham, Martinez)
NW (Oregon State, et al – Mote, Dello)
Modeling Advisory Committee (MAC)
Phil Duffy (Climate Central); Ed Maurer (Santa Clara); Tom Johnson
(EPA); Levi Brekke (BoR); Linda Mearns (NCAR); John Abatzaglou
(U. Idaho); Mike Dettinger (Scripps); Claudia Tebaldi (Climate
Central); Joe Barsugli (Western Water Assessment)
Project Mgr, WUCA: David Behar
Project Mgr, RISAs: Phil Mote
Piloting Utility Modeling Applications (PUMA)
Goals
and
Workplan
Select Pilots
Recruit Partners
Self selected
WUCA Utilities
Modeling Advisory
Committee (MAC)
RISA Leaders
Share Knowledge
Utility Briefing Papers
Modeling Inventory
MAC Survey
Workshop
San Francisco
Dec 1-3, 2010
Workshop
Memorialization
P R O J E C T
2011
Assessments
Target Completion: 2011
White Paper
Workshop
tbd
2012
Tampa Bay Water and the Southeast Climate Consortium
Objectives:
1. Develop and understand process for using GCM output including
downscaling methods for use in local hydrologic models
2. Use downscaled GCM output in Tampa Bay Water’s Integrated
Hydrologic Model and evaluate the results of changed climate on
hydrologic results and implications for water supply management
decisions:
a.
b.
Climate tools to use include: CMIP 3 output and NARCCAP output
Regional climate model being used by COAPS at FSU
3. Provide opportunities for education and outreach to the Climate Impact
Working Group in Florida (a group of 7 utilities, three water management
districts, and SECC (UF and FSU)
4. Develop cross RISA collaboration on the PUMA/Utility projects and
engage the Modeling Advisory Committee
Target deadline: Q4 2011.
PUMA Workshop Attendees:
Wendy Graham and Chris Martinez for the SECC
Alison Adams, Jeff Guernik, and Tirasew Asefa for TBW
Seattle Public Utilities, Portland Water Bureau and the
Climate Decision Support Consortium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Revisit supply analysis using CMIP5 (have already done with
CMIP2, 3)
Changes in drawdown season
Extreme precipitation - turbidity
Transient hydrology, compare with demand ->2100 (SPU)
Urban drainage (SPU)
Update demand (no big deal) (PWB)
Coordinate, if possible, with 3 other suppliers, toward a more
regional approach (PWB)
PUMA Workshop Attendees:
Phil Mote and Kathie Dello for CDSC
Paul Fleming and Joan Kersnar for SPU
Lorna Stickel and Dave Evounek for PWB
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
and the Consortium on Climate Risk in the Urban Northeast
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
LONG TERM OBJECTIVES
•
•
Drought and stream flooding vulnerabilities
•
Testing effects of climate scenarios on
reservoir models [include solar, wind, and
RH], nutrients, and turbidity
•
Sea level rise and water supply (salt front,
groundwater)
•
Co-develop respectful and cooperative
relationship between the CCRUN RISA and
the water utilities; further communication
between the 3 cities
– High level discussions and workshops
in 3 cities on the concept of system
performance over the next 50 years
Create systematic approach to incorporating
climate drivers and downscaling into
hydrologic models
•
Develop consistent integrated modeling
approach, and document interactions
•
Explore urban flood risk associated with
intense precipitation, sea level rise, and
storm surge
PUMA WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
Radley Horton and Rick Palmer for CCRUN
Don Pierson for NYCDEP
CLIMATE MODELING TOOLS
•
•
•
•
GCM gridbox outputs (CMIP3, CMIP5)
RCM simulations (NARCCAP)
Statistically downscaled products
– Monthly BCSD
– Daily BCSD?
– Daily BCCA?
Other
– Stochastic approaches
– Weather generators
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and
the California-Nevada Applications Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collaboration established and committed to:
– Co-Production of Knowledge
– Co-Production of Understanding
Strategic Plan for 2011
– Utility Goals/Factors – define at outset (bottom up)
HFAM II – collaborate in resolving lapse rate calibration issue for hydro model
Compare existing VIC runs for Tuolumne and adjacent watersheds
Climate modeling tools selection
CMIP3 vs. CMIP5 vs. Combination vs. Sequential
– Data
– Politics
Co-Production of Homework
– Journal articles, PUC system and modeling tools descriptions
•
Target for Assessment: 2011
•
Workshop Participants:
Dan Cayan and Mike Dettinger for CNAP
David Behar, Alexis Dufour, and Norm Crawford for SFPUC
Some takeaways so far…
• One size never has and never will fit all
• Bottom up is the first step in top down
• The best past assessments have been those
which involved all the players, iteratively,
sustainably, exhaustingly
• Climate modeling tools – elusive still
• CMIP3 vs. CMIP5 – a bit fraught for users
• Beware the Qualitative Paradox
• Uncertainty – still the elephant in the room
• Sewersheds tougher than watersheds
• 2011 – Assessment timeframe
David Behar, Climate Program Director
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Thank you!
1145 Market Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-554-3221
[email protected]