California Air Resources Board

Background

California Climate Investments uses billions of Cap-and-Invest dollars to fund projects that reduce harmful emissions, protect public health, strengthen local economies, and support natural environments. California Climate Investments is funded by proceeds from the sale of State‑owned allowances from quarterly Cap‑and‑Invest auctions that are deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). On a yearly basis, the Legislature distributes the money from the GGRF to programs administered by different State agencies. Any program that is paid for using money from the GGRF is a California Climate Investments program.

Senate Bill (SB) 862 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014) requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop guidance on quantification methods and reporting for all State agencies that receive appropriations from the GGRF. Quantification methods are designed to estimate the greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits and co-benefits from funded projects. The resulting quantification methodologies and calculators are developed to:

• Support calculating the estimated GHG emissions reductions and applicable co-benefits for individual projects.
• Apply to the project types proposed for funding.
• Provide uniform methodologies that can be applied statewide at the census tract scale and are accessible by all applicants.
• Use existing and proven resources or methodologies, where available.
• Include the expected time period of over which GHG emissions reductions and co-benefits from projects will occur.
• Identify the appropriate data needed to calculate GHG emissions reductions and co-benefits.

Given several years of historical and anticipated future GGRF funding to water-focused programs—namely, the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water (SAFER) Program—and CARB’s role in quantifying and reporting on estimated benefits of funded projects, it is important to strengthen CARB’s ability to measure the benefits and impacts associated with water system improvements. Water systems in California are deeply interconnected with energy use: the extraction, conveyance, treatment, distribution, and end‑use of water collectively represent a large source of energy consumption in the State. Therefore, it is critical in understanding embedded energy data, carbon intensity values, and water management effects on energy.

Developing robust, transparent, and consistent water‑energy quantification methods to support California Climate Investments ensures that CARB can accurately capture and report on these benefits and target investments to the most climate‑efficient water solutions and priority populations. Improved quantification to support water-related California Climate Investments programs also enables administering agencies to better understand project co‑benefits (such as reduced operational costs, enhanced drought resilience, and improved public health outcomes) and related equity implications, while ensuring that GGRF dollars are invested in ways that maximize benefits to priority populations, GHG emission reductions, and the advancement of the State’s long‑term decarbonization and climate resilience goals.

Objective

The goal of this contract is to evaluate the availability and applicability of robust, transparent, and California‑specific quantification methods, and to build on those methods, to estimate potential GHG emissions reductions and associated co-benefits resulting from water‑related projects, with a specific focus on benefits for priority populations. These methods will support GGRF-funded programs—including the SAFER Program—in estimating and reporting on the benefits of water system improvements, system consolidations, leak reduction activities, and other water‑saving measures.

In this project, the contractor shall:

• Evaluate current literature, methodologies, and publicly available resources to support standardized and defensible methodologies to estimate GHG emission reductions and other co-benefits from water‑related infrastructure and operational projects consistent with California Climate Investments requirements and guidance.
• Produce recommendations to CARB on the quantification methods and documentation and provide guidance that can be used by State agencies administering GGRF funds for water-related projects.
• Develop a new quantification method, calculator, and supporting documentation, or compile and/or build on existing resources.
• Ensure recommendations and methods are consistent with existing California climate accounting frameworks, including but not limited to those used by CARB, California Energy Commission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
• Identify and evaluate additional co‑benefits, such as energy savings, water savings, system resilience, and community health improvements—with a focus on priority populations and potential equity implications.

All work produced must include supporting documentation and guidance to allow for CARB staff to update and maintain the deliverable.

Scope of Work

Task 1: Review of Literature, Existing Methods and Calculators, and Regulatory Alignment

The Contractor shall conduct a comprehensive review of:

• Existing GHG and co-benefit quantification methodologies and resources for water‑energy nexus projects.
• California‑specific energy intensity values for water supply, treatment, distribution, and wastewater processes and other relevant project types.
• Pertinent State guidance (e.g., CARB quantification methodologies and benefit assessment calculators, CEC water‑energy studies, DWR water loss standards).
• Applicable State frameworks for water‑related GHG accounting (e.g., Water-Energy Nexus Registry per SB 1425 (Pavley, Chapter 596, Statutes of 2016)).

As part of this review, the Contractor shall evaluate existing datasets and inventories to:

• Identify and compile datasets needed to estimate GHG emission reductions, including, but not limited to, water system energy use profiles, water loss audit data, pumping and treatment energy intensity values, and regional electricity grid emissions factors.
• Review and develop baseline conditions for representative water quality and system types (e.g., small community systems, groundwater‑dependent systems, surface water systems).
• Assess the availability of metrics and supporting data to discern potential equity implications at a census tract and broken out by priority population designation. For water infrastructure projects, a given project area (e.g., water service area) is considered a priority population if a majority of households served are designated as a priority population.

Interim Deliverable

• Technical Memorandum summarizing findings, methodological and/or data gaps, and possible approaches for quantification—including a complete list of references/resources reviewed. The memorandum should also include a comparative analysis of existing methodologies being used by other California State agencies, noting points of alignment and diversion from one another, as applicable.

          This deliverable is required before the contractor can continue to work on other tasks.

Task 2: Develop Methods for GHG Quantification and Other Co-benefits

Building on the deliverable outlined in Task 1, the Contractor shall develop quantification methods and supporting documentation for several water-related projects funded through existing California Climate Investments programs—consistent with CARB guidance and requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, estimating energy savings and related GHG emission reductions for the following project types:

• Water system consolidations, such as decommissioning small or inefficient systems; shifts in water source, treatment, and distribution; and operational efficiencies from centralized management.
• Leak reduction and water loss control, such as reduced pumping and treatment of lost water, lowered operational energy demand, and avoided future infrastructure expansion.
• Water efficiency and demand reduction measures, such as indoor and outdoor water conservation programs, and advanced metering and leak detection.
• Infrastructure upgrades, such as pump efficiency improvements and technology shifts, treatment system modernization, and storage and distribution system optimization.
• Interim solutions and emergency response for water quality and supply problems.

Additionally, the contractor shall recommend and/or develop methods to quantify or qualitatively assess relevant co‑benefits, including, but not limited to:

• Water savings and reliability improvements.
• Reduced operational costs for water systems.
• Public health and safety benefits (e.g., improved water quality).
• Other environmental benefits (e.g., reduced groundwater overdraft).

The methods and documentation developed shall include detailed equations and calculation steps; required inputs and default values; data sources and assumptions; uncertainty and sensitivity considerations; and alignment considerations with existing California Climate Investments, CARB, and other State agency requirements, guidance, and standards.

Any resulting metrics should be calculated at the census tract scale, at minimum. The output should also be aggregable to the project level (i.e., sum of project’s impact across the census tract(s)impacted by the project) and broken out by priority population designation (i.e., sum of project’s impact on census tract(s) designated as disadvantaged communities, low-income communities, etc.). This task should also include an analysis of potential equity implications of the metric components (e.g. urban/rural projects and potential impacts on priority populations).

Interim Deliverables

• Draft Quantification Methodology and Calculator
  • Create user‑friendly spreadsheets, calculators, and/or modular scripts that apply the developed methodologies.
  • Ensure the deliverables are accessible to various end users, including small water system operators with limited technical capacity.
  • Include built‑in documentation, instructions, and example scenarios.
• Produce a comprehensive report describing all methods, assumptions, data sources, etc. not described in the Draft Quantification Methodology and Calculator—including detailed documentation on how to maintain and update the deliverables.
• Deliver all draft reports, methodologies, calculators, scripts, datasets, and documentation, where applicable.

These deliverables are required before the contractor can continue to work on other tasks.

Task 3: Final Methodology and Calculator and Assessment of Past Projects

Following review and coordination with CARB and applicable State agency staff on the deliverable outlined in Task 2, the Contractor will develop and return a final quantification methodology, calculator, report, and supporting materials—including any data, scripts and guidance on how to maintain and update the calculator, where applicable.

Utilizing the final calculator, the Contractor will produce test outputs for at a minimum of ten previously funded projects from the SAFER program. The Contractor must ensure that projects selected and estimated are representative of the possible project types evaluated as part of this contract effort. Additionally, the Contractor will evaluate funded projects in both rural and urban settings, and in priority populations.

Final Deliverable

• Final Quantification Methodology and Calculator
• Final comprehensive report, including but not limited to:
  • Underlying data, scripts, and guidance material to update and maintain the calculator.
  • Output data results from the tested projects.
• Provide training sessions for CARB staff and State agency partners.
• Final contract presentation to CARB staff.

All final deliverables must meet full ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements per Assembly Bill 434 and CARB guidance.

Minimum Expectations

Provided below are the minimum expectations at various phases of the contract. Expectations at the pre-proposal stage are applicable to all proposers, while the remaining three expectations are applicable only to proposers whose pre-proposal is selected. 

At the Pre-Proposal Stage

• Include the items listed in the application process
• If applicable, provide a cultural humility statement in the pre-proposal.
• If applicable, provide a community engagement plan in the pre-proposal.

At the Beginning of the Contract

• All researchers must undergo cultural humility training (e.g., implicit bias training and racial equity training). Training should be completed or scheduled within 30 days of contract execution.

During the Active Contract Period

• The Contractor must submit Quarterly Progress Reports. These reports shall include plain-language summaries that can be posted publicly. CARB will provide the progress report template.
• The Contractor shall engage in frequent (e.g., monthly) consultation calls with CARB and key interested parties.
• The contractor shall submit Interim reports to keep CARB staff informed. These reports are expected at the end of each task, upon CARB staff’s request, to ensure that progress is being made.

Prior to Contract Close

• The contractor shall submit all data, analyses, and analytical resources generated during this project.
• The contractor shall satisfy the following requirements of the Draft Final Report (DFR):
• DFR will be copy-edited, reviewed, and approved by the Principal Investigator.
• Include a plain language summary in DFR
• Include an equity implications section in DFR
• If applicable, have the DFR reviewed by community representatives.
• The contractor must work with CARB to create plain-language outreach deliverables for the public, summarizing the results and impact of the project.
• The Final Report submitted to CARB must be in an accessible format aligned with WCAG Guidelines.
• The contractor will participate in a virtual or in-person seminar to present the project findings.
• Peer-reviewed publications should be publicly available (please budget for this expense; submission-ready publications shall be reviewed by CARB staff).
• Additional deliverables shall be determined in consultation with CARB staff.

Timeline

This project is anticipated to be completed in 24 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $250,000.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the pre-proposal solicitation(15 points)

The pre-proposal should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB aims to address with this project while highlighting their expertise on the subject.

The pre-proposal should consider various aspects of the need and identify or acknowledge any potential biases. It should outline, in sufficient detail, the proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Solicitation. The pre-proposal must detail work that aligns with the objectives outlined in the Contract Solicitation:

·         Evaluate current literature, methodologies, and publicly available resources to support standardized and defensible methodologies to estimate GHG emission reductions from water‑related infrastructure and operational projects consistent with California Climate Investments requirements and guidance.

·         Produce recommendations to CARB on the quantification methods, documentation, and provide guidance that can be used by State agencies administering GGRF funds for water-related projects. Develop a quantification method, calculator, and supporting documentation that compiles and/or builds on existing resources.

·         Ensure recommendations and methods are consistent with existing California climate accounting frameworks, including those used by CARB, California Energy Commission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

·         Identify and evaluate additional co‑benefits, such as energy savings, water savings, system resilience, and public health improvements—with a focus on priority populations and equity implications.

Policy relevance/benefits to the State(10 points)

The pre-proposal must describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to support the objectives of this project in furtherance of CARB’s mission. 

The pre-proposal must provide details on how the recommended or developed methods, calculators, and resources will be consistent with existing CARB guidance. More specifically:

• Support calculating the estimated GHG emissions reductions and applicable co-benefits for individual projects.
• Apply to the project types proposed for funding.
• Provide uniform methodologies that can be applied statewide at the census tract scale and are accessible by all applicants.
• Use existing and proven resources or methodologies, where available.
• Include the expected time period of over which GHG emissions reductions and co-benefits from projects will occur.
• Identify the appropriate data needed to calculate GHG emissions reductions and co-benefits.

Previous work (15 points)

The pre-proposal should demonstrate that the proposers have a team with the work experience or subject matter expertise required to successfully carry out the proposed project as described in the varying tasks. Additionally, the pre-proposal should describe how the project will build upon previous relevant work that was funded by CARB, other regional, state, and federal agencies (e.g., the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of Energy). If the project includes an equity component and/or community engagement, proposers should describe prior experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references, or a community impact statement detailing how their previous work has benefited communities.

Five points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1.      The project team is multi-disciplinary.

2.      The project team includes members from various universities, non-academic institutions, or community-based organizations.

3.      The project team includes one or more members who will contribute significantly to the project (e.g., a principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (25 points)

The pre-proposal should clearly explain the logic and feasibility of the project’s methodology, spell out the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain methods for performing the work. The pre-proposal should include a clear description and plan for how each task will be completed. 

The pre-proposal should also explain how the proposed methods are robust and how the results will be validated. Pre-proposals will be reviewed for how well they address these areas:

1.      Is the proposed measurement approach appropriate? Are the technologies being considered suitable, and will the proposed analysis yield relevant results?

2.      Does the proposed work address all the deliverables outlined in the “Deliverables” section? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.

3.      The review team will select only one pre-proposal for development into a full proposal. If this pre-proposal shows potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or further explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided(15 points)

The pre-proposal should describe how time and resources will be allocated and demonstrate how this allocation ensures the project’s success. Pre-proposal reviewers will evaluate whether supervision and oversight are sufficient to keep the project on schedule, and whether the distribution of time and resources is appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation, analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel.

Cost effectiveness (20 points)

Pre-proposal reviewers will evaluate if costs are appropriately allocated across different project tasks and stages and if the proposed work appears feasible within the requested budget.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to the needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to the interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.