2/12/2009 Water Conservation: How to Make It Happen! Mary Ann Dickinson Executive Director Alliance for Water Efficiency Water Utility Perceptions Conservation doesn’t work Conservation may work, but it’s too expensive Conservation may work and may be cheaper than buying other water, but it’s not reliable Conservation mayy work, may y be cheaper, may be reliable, but it’s not popular with our customers 1 2/12/2009 The Reality Major new products and appliances Efficiency laws and regulations on Federal, State, and local levels Incentive funding from wholesalers and regulatory agencies Technical assistance available for all questions Strong community support IF DONE CORRECTLY What the Public Can Perceive…….. 2 2/12/2009 When Does This Happen? When water utilities do nothing until a crisis occurs and d restrictions t i ti are enacted t d Conservation then seen as deprivation Underlying ethic missing in water Consumers unaware of actual water use Consumers unaware of resource impacts Water not priced to its true value value, despite big bills for its distribution and pending shortages Where Are The Shortages? 3 2/12/2009 4 2/12/2009 Conservation’s Many Benefits Drought Tool: short-term relief Planning Tool: lessen gap between demand and available supply Economic Tool: defer capital facilities for drinking water and wastewater treatment e.g. US will spend a quarter trillion dollars by the year 2020 Drinking D i ki and dW Wastewater SRF ffunds d Where Is It Most Expensive? WA ND MT MN 8 ME NH SD OR 10 ID MI NV UT 5 3 OH KS IN NM MS 6 LA VA TN AR SC $Billions 4 TX AK FL 9 HI MD NC GA AL RI DE WV KY OK GU CT NJ MO CA 10 MA PA IL CO AZ 2 NY IA 7 1 VT WY NE 9 WI < $10 $10 - $20 $20 - $30 $30 - $40 $40 - $50 > $50 20 Year Drinking Water and Clean Water Infrastructure Needs by EPA Region 5 2/12/2009 Delay and Downsizing Means $ 25 Required Capacity Before Conservation PEAK D DEMAND/CAPACITY (mgd) 20 DOWNSIZING DELAY 15 Existing Capacity 10 Ba se lin e D e m a n d Aft e r Co n se r v a t io n 5 0 2000 201 0 2020 2030 2040 YEAR Seattle Example 6 2/12/2009 Approaches We Will Discuss 1. Set and continually revise product and appliance li standards t d d 2. Label all water using products 3. Develop state requirements for planning 4. Determine local benefits of conservation 5. Enact cost effective conservation programs at the water utility level 6. Develop partnerships 7. Join the water efficiency network 1. Set National Standards 1992 Energy Policy Act Fixture Water Closets (Toilets) Showerheads Faucets Urinals U.S. Standard 1.6 gallons /flush 2.5 gallons /min 2.2 gallons /min 1 gallon /flush January 2001 Report sent to Congress 5-8% reduction of demand Delays and defers capital investment $26/person savings for $7.5 billion 7 2/12/2009 More Standards In 2005 US Energy Policy Act revised to sett efficiency ffi i Standard St d d for f pre-rinse i spray valves (1.6 gallons/minute maximum) In 2007 California enacted requirement that all toilets sold and installed be no more than 1.28 gallons/flush by 2014 Texas considering similar legislation New national standard likely to mirror California law – perhaps in 2010? And More EPAct Standards Standard dishwashers limited to 6.5 gallons per cycle after 1/1/2010; compact dishwashers limited to 4.5 gallons per cycle Residential clothes washers must meet a maximum water factor of 9.5 by 1/1/2011 (Most are top loaders between 11.5 - 13) Department of Energy authorized to specify even stronger efficiency standards for clothes washers in 2015 and dishwashers in 2018 8 2/12/2009 2. Label Products Program announced June, 2006 Voluntary program only Energy Star companion 20% more efficient Performance Tested Products: HETs Faucets New Homes Urinals 3. Develop Requirements Over 15 State Conservation Programs Planning Requirements and Permit Hooks Implementation of specific programs Sample States: Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Kansas; New Jersey; New Mexico; Oregon; Texas; Washington Sample Cities: Seattle, Seattle Boston, Boston New York City, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Austin, Tampa, Denver, San Diego and Las Vegas 9 2/12/2009 How Much Can Be Saved? 1998 AWWARF Study of residential end uses in 1300 homes in twelve cities using data-loggers Without conservation, the household used on average 64.6 gallons per capita per day With conservation, the per capita per day figure is reduced to 44 44.7 7 gallons gallons, or 30% savings Relative Consumption 1998 AWWARF Study showed national average off residential id ti l per capita it consumption was 170 gallons per person per day Brisbane Australia’s residential per capita is 36 gallons per person per day No noticeable loss of lifestyle Consumer behavior reductions are huge How do WE get there? Highlighting the benefits of conservation 10 2/12/2009 4. Benefits of Water Savings PROVIDING UTILITY SYSTEM VALUE Satisfying the demands of new growth without needing additional capital investment for supply and treatment Flattening the demand peak to reduce the need for water supply and treatment investment to meet an artificially high peak The Water Water--Energy Connection 11 2/12/2009 Energy Benefit Energy embedded in entire water cycle Water supply conveyance pumping, treatment, distribution pumping, wastewater treatment, recycling 19% of CA electric energy load 32% of CA natural gas energy load Saving water Ö saves energy Ö saves greenhouse gas emissions Santa Clara Valley Water District Example Saving Water Saves Energy Equivalent to electricity for 236,000 households for one year 500 450 Projected FY 29-30 400 Energy y (million kWh) Recycling 350 300 250 Total Energy Savings since FY 92-93: 1.62 billion kWh Conservation 200 150 100 50 0 0 -3 29 7 -0 06 6 -0 05 5 -0 04 4 -0 03 3 -0 02 2 -0 01 1 -0 00 0 -0 99 9 -9 98 8 -9 97 7 -9 96 6 -9 95 5 -9 94 4 -9 93 3 -9 92 Fiscal Year 12 2/12/2009 Saving Water Saves CO2 Equivalent to removing 82,000 passenger cars for one year 120 Projected FY 29-30 CO O2 (million kg) 100 Recycling 80 Total CO2 Reductions since FY 92-93: 381 million kg 60 Conservation 40 20 0 0 -3 29 9 -9 8 -9 7 -9 6 -9 5 -9 4 -9 3 -9 7 -0 06 6 -0 05 5 -0 04 4 -0 03 3 -0 02 2 -0 01 1 -0 00 0 -0 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 Fiscal Year Benefits of Water Savings RESTORING ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES g the habitat along g rivers and Maintaining streams and restoring fisheries with increased flows Protecting groundwater supplies from excessive depletion from over pumping or contamination from excessive landscape irrigation runoff Reducing Red cing the discharge volume ol me of wastewater Reducing excessive runoff of urban contaminants now regulated under TMDLs 13 2/12/2009 More Benefits of Water Savings Restoring the natural values and functions of wetlands and estuaries impacted by excessive water supply withdrawals Reducing green waste from landscaped areas All these can be modeled Environmental Benefits Model created in California (www.cuwcc.org) 5. So Where To Start? Analyze the water system needs and pinpoint i i t where h you mostt need d your savings targeted Determine a baseline set of data for eventual evaluation Analyze the water and energy use Evaluate the water users and where the water is actually being consumed 14 2/12/2009 Urban Water Uses: An Example And Then? Draw up a conservation plan and budget over a multiple year time frame Justify the economics of each program choice Plan for long-term savings evaluation that is comprehensive and statistically defensible Readjust your program based on results achieved 15 2/12/2009 First Steps Are Free Designate A Conservation Coordinator Designate responsibility within agency to an individual identifiable to the public Prohibit Obvious Water Wastage with Simple Ordinances Enact and enforce local ordinances prohibiting gutter flooding, single-pass cooling, non-recirculating systems in car washes and commercial laundries, non-recycling decorative fountains Retrofit on resale, retrofit on reconnect, retrofit to grow Example ordinances being compiled Next: Educate the Public Public Information Programs Provide speakers, advertising, and other information to promote water conservation School Education Programs Work with school districts by providing materials for water conservation instruction Th Right The Ri ht C Consumer M Messages A Are Important 16 2/12/2009 Message: Largest indoor water use 28% of indoor water use is toilet flushing with potable water Older toilets are 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush Federal standard since 1992 is 1.6 gallons New models at 1.28 gallons Convince the consumers Reduce the LEAKS! Message: 2nd largest indoor water user 15% of indoor water use is clothes washing Energy Star Washers were not always water efficient By 2011 all residential washers must be 9.5 WF 40 MGD will be saved every year over older toploading models 17 2/12/2009 NEWS FLASH FOR THE CONSUMER: Where the water is really going 30 30-60% 60% of urban residential water consumption is outdoor irrigation 80% in some areas of the West Over-irrigation is common, particularly in new homes with automatic irrigation systems Reducing unnecessary irrigation reduces runoff and pollutant loading of streams Reducing irrigation reduces summer peak Not As Easy As Indoors 35% more water used with in-ground sprinklers 47% more water used with average domestic irrigation timers Business and City landscapes have significant potential for water savings High landscape water use increases waste and runoff 18 2/12/2009 Next Steps Meter With Commodity Rate Meter all new connections and bill by volume Retrofit unmetered connections Consider installing dedicated landscape meters Audit Your Water System and Repair Leaks Conduct system audit with the new methodology Monitor water delivery system for leaks and make cost-effective repairs 19 2/12/2009 Adopt the New Method Authorized Billed Authorized Consumption Billed Metered Consumption Revenue Water Billed Unmetered Consumption Consumption Unbilled Authorized Consumption System Input Apparent Losses Volume W t Water Losses Real Losses Unbilled Metered Consumption Unbilled Unmetered Consumption Unauthorized Consumption Non Customer Meter Inaccuracies Revenue LLeakage on Transmission and k T i i d Distribution Mains Leakage and Overflows at Storage Tanks Leakage on Service Connections up to point of Customer Meter Water Next Steps Explore Better Conservation Rates Ad Adoptt water t rates t that th t provide id an incentive i ti tto customers to reduce average or peak use If utility provides both water and sewer service, apply conservation pricing to both Customer should not be penalized for conserving Adjust rate structure BEFORE undertaking conservation programs to avoid revenue loss Look at budget-based rates 20 2/12/2009 We Are Still Pricing Wrong Rate Structure Residential Non-Residential Uniform 37.2% 45.9% Increasing block 29.1% 17.6% Decreasing block 30.4% 33.1% 34% 3.4% 34% 3.4% Oth Other Adapted from Raftelis, 2002 Relative Prices for Status Quo and Conservation Rates: Account 068/174-04, Relative Price GraphBilling Period 3 (Row 333) $3.50 $3.00 Rates ($/ccf) $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 Status Quo Blocks Conservation Blocks Status Quo Use Conservation Use $0.50 $0.00 0 10 20 Source: Thomas Chesnutt, A&N Technical Services 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Use (ccf) 21 2/12/2009 Water BudgetBudget-Based Rates? Study just released by the AWWARF Implemented I l t d iin communities iti ffacing i lilimited it d supplies/shortages Seen as more equitable way to share limited supply while preserving choice Need to communicate assumptions to customer and allow for necessary adjustment No revenue loss from conservation; revenue GAIN! Individualized Rate Concept Rate/unit Higher Rate Lower R Rate Water Budget Units 22 2/12/2009 Where Already Implemented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 U t ilit y L o c a t io n IR W D O ta y W a te r D is tr ic t C a p is tr a n o V a lle y W D C ity o f B o u ld e r LA D W P T ow n of C ary C ity o f M o r r is v ille SD CW A M a r c o Is la n d S a n C le m e n te M o n te r e y D is tr ic t T a r r if A r e a C ity o f C a s tle R o c k L a s V e g a s V a lle y W a te r D is tr ic t C e n te n n ia l W a te r & S a n ita tio n D is tr ic t S a n ta R o s a E a s te r n M W D L ak e A rro w h ead C ity o f A u r o r a S o u th e r n N e v a d a W a te r A u th o r ity C o n tr a C o s ta W a te r D is tr ic t C ity o f R o h n e r t P a r k C ity o f S a n ta B a r b a r a C ity o f F a ir f ie ld C ity o f A lb u q u e r q u e EBM UD S a lt L a k e C it y D e p t. o f P u b lic U tilitie s I r v in e , C A S a n D ie g o , C A S a n J u a n C a p is tr a n o , C A B o u ld e r , C O L o s A n g e le s C ary, N C M o r r is v ille , N C S a n D ie g o , C A M a r c o Is la n d , F L S a n C le m e n te , C A M o n te r e y , C A C a s tle R o c k , C O LVV W D H ig h la n d s R a n c h , C O S a n ta R o s a , C A L o s A n g e le s m e tr o a r e a S . C a lif o r n ia A u ro ra, C O L as V egas, N V C o n tr a C o s ta , C A R o h n ert P a rk , C A S a n ta B a r b a r a , C A F a ir f ie ld , C A A lb u q u e r q u e , C A O a k la n d , C A S a lt L a k e C it y , U T Documented Savings Period Otay Irvine pre ‘88-’90 Av post ’90 Av Difference Percent Change 28.71 23.05 -5.66 -20% 52.16 32.78 -19.38 -37% Capistrano Valley 28.35 18.45 -9.90 -35% Values are irrigation rates in inches/acre 23 2/12/2009 Typical Residential Programs Conduct Residential Audits Offer Off residential id ti l customers t water-use t surveys which hi h include checking for leak, flow rates, irrigation systems and schedules. Try contacting 20% of your customers each year to offer surveys. Offer incentives and devices. Retrofit Residential Plumbing Best when tied to the audit program. program Provide 2.0 to 2.5 gallon-per-minute showerheads and aerators. More Residential Programs Replace Old Toilets with ULFTs Implement a program to replace high-water using toilets with 1.6 gallons per flush models or new higher efficiency toilets at 1.28 gallons per flush Retrofit High-Efficiency Washers Provide rebate to encourage purchase of highefficiency clothes washing machines New national standard taking effect in 2007 24 2/12/2009 Program Economies of Scale Monthly Program Activity March April May June Cumulative ULF toilets distributed 4 285 4,285 9 550 9,550 13 929 13,929 20 423 20,423 $85.26 $45.57 $37.64 $30.60 20.63 19.01 20.97 21.49 7.94 6.19 7.13 6.00 27.58 16.22 13.01 10.70 65.44 64.91 66.79 67.70 $206.85 $151.90 $145.54 $136.49 Cumulative cost per ULF toilet: 1. Program design, development, marketing & mgmt. support 2. Payment to community‐based distribution organization 3. Payment for recycling old toilet 4. Warehousing cost for ULF toilet inventory 5. Purchase of toilet and related materials Total cumulative unit cost of distributed ULF toilets Source: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Large User Programs: Best Value Examine the Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Accounts Identify and rank customers in each customer class Retrofit high-flow toilets and clothes washers Look at high water using processes for possible efficiency improvements Reduce overall sector water use by 10% of baseline San Antonio gets 50% of its water savings here 25 2/12/2009 Commercial Opportunities Waterless Urinals X-ray machines Cooling Tower Audits and Retrofits Laundries and Laundromats Food Service Sector Pre-rinse spray valves Dishwashers Icemakers Connectionless Food Steamers Water Broom Industrial Opportunities Counter-flow washing & rinse systems Reuse of process water Recirculation of cooling water Cooling Tower Audits and Retrofits Cleaning and Sanitation Treatment and Use of Blowdown Pollution Prevention Water Recycling 26 2/12/2009 Large Landscape Examine Large Landscape Accounts Install separate landscape meter Assign a yearly or adjusted monthly water budget of <80% ETo Link water budgets to tariffs Offer incentives to minimize irrigation needs For mixed-use meters: offer irrigation surveys to highest 20% of customers Outdoor Solutions Appropriate landscape design S il amendments Soil d t and d mulching l hi Weather-based irrigation controllers Fix leaking irrigation systems Drip Irrigation Grey water Rainwater Harvesting Recycled water Water Budgets 27 2/12/2009 Use New Technology Et Weather Data For Irrigation Scheduling Monitor Irrigation Performance 28 2/12/2009 So….Is Conservation Affordable? Costs between $0.46 and $1.40 per 1,000 gallons, depending on the program Most utilities paying more than $1.40 per 1,000 gallons to develop NEW supply Conservation should be automatic where the utility’s avoided cost of water is HIGHER than the unit cost of conserved water Conservation should be capitalized like supply to reduce rate impacts Revenue loss from conservation can be AVOIDED! 29 2/12/2009 Unfortunate Growth Facts Studies are showing that new homes are using i 12-60% 12 60% more water t than th their th i existing counterparts By 2030 the US will have doubled its built environment Not just high-end homes Hot Water Waste Automatic and unmonitored irrigation Shower “systems” 30 2/12/2009 All This Needs Your Help Promote Low-Impact Development P Promote t Green G Building B ildi th thatt is i Bl Blue Work for national policies on non-potable uses Provide positive support for water utilities Rates Capitalizing conservation Innovative watershed policies Educate consumers Make conservation a POSITIVE program! Work on partnerships 6. New Water Efficiency Partners Industry Manufacturing Trade associations Retailers Development community Academia and research institutions Environmental and Energy groups Community organizations 31 2/12/2009 Solutions We Need Policies requiring efficiency at all levels of government Conservation integrated into utility water supply planning More equitable pricing structures Climate change credits for embedded energy in water Non-potable water irrigation Heighted consumer awareness A New Coordinating Approach Partnerships needed among the public and d private i t sectors t More than just water utilities needed Stakeholder-created and defined 501(c)(3) Non-profit Office opened in September, 2007 in Chicago Membership: 186 organizations as of February 6, 2009 32 2/12/2009 Stakeholder Representation Water suppliers (retail and wholesale) Water W t planning l i agencies i Plumbing, appliance & irrigation manufacturers Retailers Efficiency service providers Environmental community Energy community Government (federal, state, municipal) Academic representatives The AWE Board Call for nominations issued 110 applications li ti received i d Nominating committee chosen at June, 2006 workshop Selection is balance of stakeholder groups and geographical location Board announced December, 2006 First meeting January, 2007 3 meetings per year 33 2/12/2009 Alliance Activity MISSION: Promote the efficient and sustainable t i bl use off water t Be a clear and authoritative national voice Transition Team Memo Advocacy on Stimulus funding Provide comprehensive information on products, programs, and practices Web site Resource Library Technical Assistance Represent the interest of efficiency in codes and standards process 34 2/12/2009 Alliance Activity Coordinate with Green Building Programs on water efficiencyy Train water conservation professionals Workshops Materials Models Educate water users to improve the consumers understanding of the need for efficiency Conduct needed research Work with EPA WaterSense program Advisory Committees Three standing member committees: 1. Education and Outreach Committee 2. Water Efficiency Research 3. WaterSense and Water Efficient Products First in-person meeting of committees in October, 2008 Regular business by conference calls Manage priorities and projects of AWE 35 2/12/2009 36 2/12/2009 37 2/12/2009 38 2/12/2009 Alliance Model PLANNING MODEL FOR CONSERVATION Mechanism for tracking long-term savings Metric units Fully customizable for your utility Ties into existing and available models Understandable graphic outputs for your managers, board members, and customers Beta testing begins in March, 2009 39 2/12/2009 40 2/12/2009 41 2/12/2009 And We Sell Books! • Bulk Discounted Reference Publications 7. Join the Network! Sign up for our email list Advocate Ad t for f national ti l policy li changes h Join as a member (1 cent a connection) Technical assistance is limited to members Share with us your case studies of conservation programs for our web site Resource Library Share your research and program needs with us so that we can get national funding 42 2/12/2009 43