RFP Guidance & Sample Language  

Components of an Energy Efficiency RFQ/RFP

Though the structure may vary, most RFQ/RFP’s contain several common components. The most commonly found sections are described below. The order of these sections may vary between documents.

• Project Background Information – This provides an introduction and context for the RFQ/RFP. This section outlines the impetus for the project, and clearly states goals for the project, typically in general terms.
• Scope of Work– This section discusses in greater detail the project for which the RFQ/RFP has been issued. It describes the work to be done and the expectations of the issuing agency.
• Qualifications – This includes a list of the qualifications which the issuing agency is looking for from respondents.
• Criteria for Evaluation or Selection – This explains the selection process and how submissions will be evaluated. Some requests outline specific scoring and weighting mechanisms while others list the selection criteria without indicating their relative importance in decision making. This section also notes how and when respondents will be notified of a decision.
• Specifications for Statement of Qualifications Submission – This section describes the required method and format for submitting responses. It often describes the timetable for submitting responses.
• Legal Requirements – Usually boilerplate that lays out the rights of the issuing agency and terms regarding the selection process. 

Project Background: Plant & Process Information

For any upgrade project – and possibly for new construction projects as well – it is important to provide respondents with basic facility data. Key pieces of information include facility size, age, typical flows (summer, winter, wet weather), and process type (e.g. activated sludge secondary treatment, membrane bioreactor). It is recommended to provide a process-flow diagram, indicating process stages and location in the facility. Also it is important to disclose what is driving the project (e.g. new effluent quality standards, increased flow capacity, energy cost reduction). This information will provide respondents with some project context in which to situate facility energy performance.

A municipality intent on prioritizing energy considerations should pay careful attention to specifying that RFQ/RFP respondents possess experience in implementing and evaluating energy efficiency and/or renewable energy measures.  When listing qualifications, a municipality should ask respondents to clearly describe their experience related to energy efficiency and energy management at water and wastewater facilities. The focus on energy should not take precedence over respondents’ technical expertise in water-wastewater. A qualified respondent will have documentable expertise in both energy and water-wastewater treatment. Water-wastewater treatment systems are complicated, interconnected systems. Qualified respondents must be able to demonstrate an understanding of how different treatment processes and their operation affect energy consumption and vice versa. In addition, respondents should be asked to provide a list of their relevant projects from the last 5 years, which includes for each project a description; size and cost information; energy efficiency measures evaluated; and contact information for an owner’s representative who can provide further information and act as a reference.

In recent years we have seen a proliferation of grants, rebates, and tax credits made available for projects that aim to reduce energy consumption or that use alternative fuel sources. When considering a firm for a water or wastewater facility project, municipalities should seek to identify those that are familiar with these funding sources, by asking for a list of respondents’ projects that have received outside funding, and for the funding sources.

Below is a sample list of qualifications asked for in a typical project request, followed by additional items specific to an Energy Efficiency RFQ/RFP:

Common to all requests: Qualification Information

• Responsibilities and authority level of all team members
• Years of experience
• Education – degrees, schools and years obtained
• Professional registrations and certifications
• Relevant licenses
• Client references

Specific to Energy Efficiency RFQ/RFP: Experience

• Description of recent projects of a similar scope and scale including date, cost and size of project, energy efficiency measures evaluated; and client contact information
• Experience with alternate funding opportunities such as government incentives and grants, utility rebate programs, and other options
• Sample energy efficiency study which demonstrates life cycle cost analysis (specify methods used) skills and methods and familiarity with water and wastewater treatment processes

Additional Considerations • Capacity Sizing • Lifecycle Cost • Energy Use

Treatment Capacity Sizing

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many water-wastewater treatment plants are operating significantly below their design capacity. Plants are typically designed based on 20-year estimates of projected flow or demand, and many are oversized relative to current flow rates. For example, a facility designed to accommodate 10 MGD that is operating at 2 MGD of average daily flow is very difficult to operate efficiently, even if the facility was designed with efficiency in mind. High design flows will accommodate energy efficiency only if scalability and modular design are included from the outset (e.g. using a multiple smaller pumps sized for average demand, equipped with variable frequency drives – if appropriate – and cascading controls, rather than fewer large pumps sized for peak demand).

 [Local jurisdiction or facility] desires a consultant with proven ability to analyze multiple possibilities with goals of minimizing energy use and reducing fossil fuel consumption. The selected consultant shall develop a cost-benefit analysis that considers both capital expenditures and operating costs, including projected energy savings, and incorporates alternate funding opportunities such as government incentives, energy rebate programs and others, as appropriate. The consultant not only must properly size systems to meet permit requirements but also evaluate the opportunity for operational flexibility in treatment processes to minimize energy consumption and peak energy loads under various flow conditions, both current and projected. All analyses and recommendations should be based on the latest applicable codes. All upgrades should be coordinated with [local electric and gas utilities].

Lifecycle Cost Analysis

Discussions with engineering firms and treatment facility operators indicate that the decision making process for plant upgrades and new construction focuses primarily on first costs and capital expenditures, rather than on operating expenses and life cycle cost. There is also a perception throughout much of the water-wastewater community that energy efficient designs and systems come at a cost premium relative to traditional systems. This is certainly true for some systems, but is not the case in many others. For instance, there is no cost premium to align process buildings to shorten and straighten pumping runs, which may dramatically reduce pump energy requirements. Meanwhile increased competition in the marketplace is driving down the cost of many emerging high-efficiency technologies.

While the first cost of efficient equipment and processes is low or falling, energy prices are on the rise and threaten to overwhelm municipal budgets. A central motivation when municipalities consider upgrades or redesigns of their water-wastewater treatment operations is the need to reduce the amount of money being spent every month on unnecessary energy consumption. Expanding the basis of discussion to include operating costs is critical to encouraging design and installation of energy efficient systems.

Capital cost evaluation alone fails to account for operation and maintenance costs, which typically exceed – sometimes many times over – the up-front cost of the equipment. Lifecycle cost analysis is a means of integrating operations and maintenance costs into the evaluation and planning of a facility upgrade or expansion project. Lifecycle cost simply means evaluating the cost of a piece of equipment over an expected lifetime for that product, including the energy and maintenance costs that it will incur over that time. When two or more products are compared, the basis for this comparison should be the full cost of each product over this lifecycle.

Any design or upgrade must be evaluated for energy efficiency and a lifecycle energy cost comparison developed for review by [local jurisdiction, etc.] officials. All comparisons should include capital, operation and maintenance expenses. Provide a sample report which demonstrates consultant’s capabilities and methods for performing a life cycle cost analysis and computing energy savings.

Energy Use Baseline

In order to understand the impact of energy efficiency improvements, a facility must establish a baseline of current energy performance. For new construction, this is a more difficult question to address as there is no immediate point of reference for energy performance. For retrofit or new construction projects, the ENERGY STAR benchmarking tool for wastewater facilities can provide an indication of how a proposed facility might perform, both in terms of absolute and relative energy intensity (kBTU/gallons/day or performance relative to facilities of similar size). The tool may also be used to indicate how a proposed retrofit might impact energy performance. The sample language below provides an example for how project requests might utilize ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager.

For this project, a pre-retrofit ENERGY STAR Rating, the weather normalized energy intensity in kBTU/gallons per day, and an estimated post-retrofit ENERGY STAR Rating using EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager shall be provided. If the facility type is not eligible for rating in Portfolio Manager, then the normalized source Energy Use Index (e.g. btu/gal treated) will suffice.

The ENERGY STAR benchmarking tool focuses on energy use at the facility level. In evaluating specific processes within a facility it is also important to measure the energy use of individual systems and pieces of equipment. This may be accomplished through sub-metering – measuring the energy use of a particular process by adding a meter to a piece of equipment or a system. Sub-metering may help an operator to understand power usage during specific stages of the treatment process and establish priorities regarding efficiency upgrades. Consider requesting that sub-metering of energy intensive equipment be included in the project design.

Process • Pumping • Aeration • Solids Handling • Disinfection • Nutrient Removal

A challenge in providing guidance of any depth and specificity stems from the uniqueness of drinking water-wastewater facilities. Each facility, even those employing similar treatment processes, is subject to variables that will determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of energy efficiency measures. That said, three activities typically account for the majority of energy use in these facilities: pumping, aeration, and solids handling. Pumping alone accounts for about 90% of the energy consumed in drinking water treatment, whereas the three activities combine to make up approximately 85% of energy use at a typical activated sludge wastewater facility. An energy efficiency RFQ/RFP should request that the selected consultant provide, as part of the preliminary and final design process, a thorough assessment of potential energy saving measures including control and operations strategy for pumping, aeration, and solids handling. For each measure, the consultant should provide capital and life-cycle costs and annual kWh savings. This assessment should include information on process design, operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and regular efficiency testing for large process equipment.

Given the relative energy intensity of pumping, aeration, and solids handling, specific guidance for projects in these areas is provided below (italics). Ultraviolet disinfection and nutrient removal processes are also discussed, as these processes are becoming more commonplace and more energy intensive. None of these systems operate in isolation; changes in one area can impact the performance of other systems and the treatment process as a whole. The guidance document reinforces the importance that municipalities select a design firm which demonstrates an understanding of how system adjustments may impact energy consumption, reliability and effluent quality.

Pumping

The design of a water or wastewater pumping system will greatly affect energy use. A proper design should consider the energy implications of peak flow rates, pipe/forcemain sizes, and equipment selection. Careful attention should also be paid to the proper application of variable speed pumping and multi-stage pumping strategies.

Preliminary and final designs of pumping system projects should include details regarding the following energy efficiency considerations:

• Types of pumps which minimize energy use and maintenance problems, especially clogging with wastewater debris.
• Pump operating point selection and number of pumps needed to maximize energy efficiency for average operating conditions while meeting peak flow and reliability requirements.
• System energy performance calculations under a range of operating conditions (present and future conditions,, dry and wet weather flows, largest pump out of service, continuous operation with variable speed control verses on-off constant speed operation. etc.)
• Lifecycle cost assessment of premium vs. standard efficiency equipment, including energy and maintenance costs
• System monitoring and control strategy
• Equipment service schedule
• Operation and maintenance manual for pumps and control system.
• Energy management training for operations staff

Aeration

Aeration in the secondary treatment process accounts for 30-60% of total energy consumption at the typical activated sludge wastewater treatment facility (EPRI 2000; WEF 1997). There are a number of opportunities to improve the energy performance of aeration systems, including dissolved oxygen (DO) sensors and automated controls, fine bubble diffusers, efficient blowers, and variable speed drives. Not all of these opportunities are appropriate at every facility, but each one should be evaluated for any project that includes an aeration system upgrade or expansion component.

Preliminary and final designs of activated sludge system projects should include details regarding the following energy efficiency considerations:

• Evaluation of latest fine bubble diffuser and blower technology, and DO control strategies
• Process for annual efficiency testing (amp draw, head loss, air flow, back pressure, and other relevant system performance metrics)
• Equipment service schedule, including diffuser maintenance (cleaning, replacement of broken units, etc.)
• Operation and maintenance procedures to maximize energy efficiency and system performance
• Energy management training for operations staff Regarding blower technology and dissolved oxygen management:

• Consider system performance under a wide range of operating conditions
• Consider “packaged” blower products that include blower, variable speed drive, DO sensor, and PLC controls
• Evaluate the opportunity for multi-blower or cascading blower operation
• Compare curves of various types of blowers,, including high-speed turbo blowers, based on wire to air efficiency (Standard CFM/kWh)
• Assess DO control system and DO sensor technology, and consider optical sensor technology

Solids Handling

A variety of techniques and processes are applied to the solids handling function of a wastewater treatment plant, most of them focused on reducing the volume of material that will ultimately need to be disposed through land application, incineration, or other means. When evaluating a new system, it is important to consider not just the energy requirements of the equipment, but the costs associated with the current solids handling method, such as hauling, incineration, and ultimate solids disposal.

Treatment facilities are increasingly utilizing anaerobic digestion of solids as a means to supply the onsite energy needs of the facility. The biogas from this digestion process may be used to generate electricity and heat. EPA has a resource for treatment plants interested in combined heat and power opportunities. For details see www.epa.gov/CHP/markets/wastewater.html.

In evaluating solids digestion, dewatering, and disposal options, include details regarding the following for each alternative:

• System energy performance calculations under a range of operating conditions (present conditions, growth scenarios)
• Lifecycle cost assessment of premium vs. standard efficiency equipment (including maintenance costs and sludge disposal costs)
• Potential for variable speed drive technology
• Options for sludge disposal or reuse other than current method
• System monitoring and control
• Equipment service schedule
• For a facility with anaerobic digestion that currently flares digester gas:

• Evaluate technologies or processes that maximize methane production (e.g. the use of fats, oils and greases [FOG]), to be used for electricity production and/or heating for processes or buildings
• Provide lifecycle cost assessments and estimates of potential energy generating capacity. Analysis should consider both capital expenditures and operating costs, and incorporate alternate funding opportunities, as appropriate

Ultraviolet Disinfection

Ultraviolet light provides final effluent disinfection at many wastewater facilities. This practice is becoming more common and increasingly energy intensive. Key considerations for energy performance include the ability to modulate system output to the level required for disinfection (dose-pacing control) and system turndown (bank size and output variability). Design of the system should allow for reduction in both the number of operating lamps and lamp output, to match flow conditions (Focus on Energy, 2006).

Nutrient Removal

Nitrification (ammonia oxidation), the process of removing ammonia from the treated effluent, is often accomplished in the aeration basins of an activated sludge facility. The air requirements for nitrification facilities are significantly higher than facilities designed to remove only carbonaceous BOD.  If a current discharge permit does not require ammonia removal, in most cases the system should be controlled to ensure that nitrification does not occur in order to save aeration energy. However requirements for nitrification may be imposed as treatment requirements become increasingly stringent with regard to nutrient removal, so an upgrade designs should provide the flexibility for future nitrogen removal. An agency may wish to include language requesting that respondents investigate and offer design possibilities (and outline the energy implications) for anticipated nutrient removal requirements.  If nitrification is required, energy recovery through provision of anoxic zones to provide denitrification should also be considered in order to reduce overall energy requirements.