Convener�s Summary of the Meeting

							                        Convener’s Summary of the Meeting
          Agricultural Sector – 11/20/07 – SCE AgTac Facility, Tulare, CA

The Minutes as a Record
It is felt that the meeting minutes as reported by Accenture are an accurate record of both
the content and the tone of the meeting.


Summary of Meeting Outcomes
This meeting had two sessions, one in the morning for production agriculture (billed as
“irrigated agriculture”) and one in the afternoon for dairymen. The morning session was
well-attended, but with only one production farmer. There was quite a bit of carry-over
into the afternoon but again, there were no production dairymen in attendance. I feel that
this is an indication of how difficult communications can be in the agricultural sector,
certainly given the time frame and timing of this process.

The above being said, there was a very wide-ranging discussion and the participants were
very well versed in CPUC programs and the purpose of the meetings. There were several
themes that surfaced:

Risk and uncertainty – production agriculture has to deal with the vagaries of weather on
a daily basis. They are also considered “price takers”, not “price makers”, which means
they are many times at the mercy of uncertain and sometimes rapidly changing markets
(in some crops, hedging through the use of futures is a very common practice as a means
of mitigating risk). Globalization is a concern for certain crops and even competition
from other states can be problematic. The bottom line is that agriculture is a very risky
business at best. Energy is, for the most part, a relatively small portion of production
budgets. Thus, if a farmer has a successful system in place, he is loath to change it absent
clear and compelling reasons. For dairymen especially, they will not adopt technology if
it appears to pose a threat to their herds. Thus, to the extent that energy efficiency as a
concept is “sold” only as new technology or management, energy efficiency is perceived
as a risk.

Self-generation – whether through solar, wind, or use of manure (or some other waste
stream) for bio-gas, there is interest in self-generation. However, the benefit/cost ratios
are not attractive absent some incentives and in the case of bio-gas, there are other
concerns. Biogas generation is not a simple process. Current tariffs are not perceived as
fair to the gas generator. However, biogas conceivably creates three revenue streams, gas
fed back into the system (net-metering), gas used on-site to offset conventional forms
(electricity or natural gas), or through the creation of pollution reduction credits
(especially as regards potential programs that are created as a result of AB 32). This is an
area where there was confidence that new technology and changes in regulations would
result in widespread adaptation. However, the timing and impact of the adaptation was
unclear.
Regulatory issues – increased pressure from regulatory agencies concerning air and water
pollution are a primary concern, especially for the dairy industry. These regulations
could drive adoption of systems that increase energy use. On the other hand they may
provide opportunities for EE programs as in many cases, reduced energy use can offset
current impacts. Not so evident is the effect of new immigration policies. If new policies
result in reduced labor forces, it may be that energy-using technology will have to be
adopted (e.g., automated sprinkler systems to take the place of irrigators that operated a
furrow system or moved portable sprinkler lines).

Overall goals and benchmarking – several cross-currents were identified that would
affect energy use by year 2020. Technology could result in lower average pressures
required for sprinkler and drip irrigation systems that are in place now. However,
technology required to address air and water quality concerns might require more energy.
It is uncertain as to the resolution of immigration issues and growers may again turn to
energy-using technology to substitute capital for labor. There was no talk of benchmarks
for on-site energy use except for the measure of Overall Pumping Efficiency during a
pump test. Without benchmarks it will be difficult to create reasonable goals and to
know when they have been reached. This lack of goals and benchmarks affects the
amount of resources that will be allocated to the sector as other sectors, with more
defined potential, will be serviced first.

Education and Training – There is a need for education. It was indicated that there were
few good well designers (an efficient water well results in less drawdown during
pumping, resulting less total dynamic head needed, resulting in less energy needed to
pump an acre-foot of water). Also, outside of the apprenticeship program at SCE there is
no formal process in place to train pump testers- there is a shortage of pump testers in
northern California. Whole system auditors are needed. For example, a pump test should
be done in conjunction with a total irrigation system audit (possibly using something like
the Mobile Irrigation Laboratory concepts). Dairymen need to look at all energy uses,
including fans, milking systems, water supply, lighting, and refrigeration.

Technology – Agriculture is not adverse to technology, it just requires proof that it works
consistently. There were several examples of shifts in production practices provided. It
was again a matter of risk and profitability. Given an effective technology, the real issue
is how to get it transferred into mainstream use.

EE Program Design - It was suggested the University of California Cooperative
Extension, the local Resource Conservation Districts, and even local NRCS agents, all
who are trusted resources for agriculture, could be used to spread the message of energy
efficiency and programs available to help improve energy conservation. Many other
states have energy efficiency programs and it may be that California would profit from
closer examination of these programs. University demonstration farms and dairies should
be utilized more as these operators will take on more risk in order to fulfill their mission
of education, research, and development. EE programs need to be simple and
coordinated so that all opportunities are easy to identify.
In summary, clear and defined strategies were not developed during this meeting. Rather,
the discussions identified the major factors that affect energy efficiency improvements in
this sector.