• Like
  • Save
Sustainable Urban Water Use - University of North Carolina
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Sustainable Urban Water Use - University of North Carolina

on

  • 366 views

Sustainable Urban Water Use - University of North Carolina

Sustainable Urban Water Use - University of North Carolina

Statistics

Views

Total Views
366
Views on SlideShare
366
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Sustainable Urban Water Use - University of North Carolina Sustainable Urban Water Use - University of North Carolina Presentation Transcript

    • Sustainable Urban Water UseEngaging leaders in the Southeast to integrate water conservation into the utility business model
    • The RBC Blue Water Project is a wide-ranging, multi-year program to helpfoster a culture of water stewardship, sothat people have clean fresh watertoday and tomorrow.
    • Dedicated to enhancing theability of governments andorganizations to provideenvironmental programsand services in fair, effectiveand financially sustainablewaysServing EPA Region 4
    • Format and Agenda for the Day Why Conservation Planning Mary Tiger, EFCUsing Planning Tools to Project Costs and Benefits Bill Christianson, AWE Driving Efficiency Through Price Shadi Eskaf, EFC Combining Price and Non-Price Programs: Mary Tiger, EFC A New Business Model for the Utility Continuing the Dialogue Group
    • Racking Up the Savings:Planning and EvaluatingCost-BeneficialWater Conservation ProgramsBill ChristiansenProgram Planner
    • 10 Steps in Conservation Planning1. Identify conservation goals2. Develop a water use profile and forecast3. Evaluate planned facilities4. Identify and evaluate conservation measures5. Identify and assess conservation incentives Source: Handbook of Water Use and Conservation: Homes, Landscapes, Businesses, Industries, Farms by Amy Vickers (WaterPlow Press, 2001), pp. 2-3. Used by AWE with permission of author.
    • 10 Steps in Conservation Planning6. Analyze benefits and costs7. Select conservation measures and incentives8. Prepare and implement the conservation plan9. Integrate conservation and supply plans, modify forecasts10.Monitor, evaluate, and revise program as needed
    • A Graphic View Data Collection ID Conservation Measures Analyze Water Demand Screen Measures Formulate Draft Water Efficiency Programs Delivery Mechanisms Stakeholder Involvement Develop Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Efficiency Programs, Economic Analysis Prioritize Options Draft Water Efficiency Implementation PlanSource: A & N Technical Services, Inc.AWWARF Project 2935: Water Efficiency Programs for Integrated Water Management
    • So Why Another Model? Need for consistent and thorough analysis of cost-effective water conservation options Tools exist in various forms Most are proprietary AWE wanted robust but easy to use model with transparent code The Home Depot Foundation funded partial development “Tracking Tool” for savings as well as analytical tool for planning
    • Tracking Tool Uses Analyze potential water savings, costs, and benefits of conservation measures Construct water conservation portfolios and long-range plans Rank conservation measures Track implementation, water savings, and costs Predict revenue impact Track and graph the benefits of actual conservation activities over time
    • Tracking Tool Features Runs in Excel 2002/03 or later version Flexible Representation of Water Savings Library of 25 Pre-Defined Conservation Measures Demand and Avoided Cost Analysis Simple User Interface Dynamic Tables, Charts, and Forms Switch Between English or Metric Units Scenario Management Detailed User Guide
    • Tracking Tool Inputs and Outputs Baseline Demand Data System Avoided Cost Data Conservation Measure Data Model Outputs Savings Analysis Benefit-Cost Analysis Revenue/Rate Impacts
    • Model Navigation Worksheet
    • Common Assumptions
    • Baseline Demands Two Data Entry Options o Enter or link to an existing demand forecast o Use model to grow current demand by population Plumbing/Energy Code Adjustment o Model can adjust for impact of existing plumbing/energy codes as necessary Demand Disaggregation o Peak/Off Peak Seasonal Demands o Customer Class Disaggregation
    • Avoided Costs Two Data Entry Options o Enter or link to an existing avoided cost forecast o Use model’s avoided cost calculator Model’s Avoided Cost Calculator o Short-run avoided O&M • Water Supply • Wastewater Treatment o Long-run avoided or deferred capacity • Calculates present value of delaying and/or downsizing peak season capacity expansion
    • Capacity Deferral Analysis
    • Setting Up Conservation Measures Two Specification Options o Build from scratch o Import pre-defined measures from library o Pre-defined measures can be customized Library currently includes 25 measures o 13 residential measures o 8 CII measures o 4 large landscape measures
    • Defining a New Conservation Measure
    • Importing a Library Measure
    • Entering Annual Activity Levels
    • Activity Savings Profile Worksheet
    • Benefit-Cost Analysis Tabular Output
    • Assessing Water Loss Control Important to include water loss control methods in model analysis Detailed modeling necessary to incorporate individual water loss control strategies for a specific utility Insufficient funding available for first version of model to do this Wanted to benchmark water loss control strategies against demand side management strategies
    • Model Assumptions Default assumption that 65% of total water losses are real losses and 35% are apparent losses. This default assumption can be modified by the user Default assumption that an aggressive water loss reduction program would, for a typical utility, reduce real losses by 20 - 40% Model compares this savings potential to program water savings from demand side conservation activities defined in the model
    • AF 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0 20 08 20 10 20 12 20 14 20 16 20 18 20 20 20 22 20 24 20 26 20 28 20 30 20 32 20Program Water Savings 34 20 36 20 38 Year 20 40 20 4220% Loss Reduction 20 Physical Loss Reduction Comparison 44 20 46 20 48 20 5040% Loss Reduction 20 52 20 54 20 56 20 58 20 60 20 62 20 64 20 66
    • Benchmark Examples (in AF)San Francisco PUC $439Nashville Water Works $318Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power $347California Grant Program $658Las Vegas WD $464Large Western US Utility $318Orange County Utilities, FL $463Average $430Maximum $658Minimum $318Source: Julian Thornton and Reinhard Sturm
    • Benchmarking Water Loss Control Conservation Activities Sorted by Utility Unit CostResidential Irrigation Controller, SF Water Loss Control - Low * Residential HE Toilets, SF Water Loss Control - High* CII HE Toilet Residential Surveys, SF $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Unit Cost ($/AF)
    • Impact to Utility Sales Revenue Requirement 0.8 Millions 0.6Change in Revenue Requirement (JD) 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Year Change in Annual Revenue Requirement Annualized Change
    • Beta Testing the Model Four US utilities tested the model: Seattle, San Antonio, Tampa Bay, Marin Municipal Water District Model now finalized with results from beta testing Version 1.2 now available in Excel Future versions will add to library of conservation measures Detailed water loss evaluation component will be added
    • Availability of Model Available free to members AWE agrees to provide free all future updates and one free hour of technical assistance Version 1.2 released last month with new features and corrections International applications (Jordan, Australia, Italy) Collecting case studies of user experiences
    • Observations Since Model Release Data inputs must be correct on avoided costs and system expansion needs Utility conservation costs must be correctly estimated Utility overhead not double-counted Savings of 15-30% reasonably likely depending upon avoided costs Users are able to create and customize California highest activity to date (due to state planning requirements)
    • Examples of Water Utility Planning CA: CA Water Service Co. (26 systems) CA: Ontario region CA: City of Oxnard CA: San Jose Region CA: West Basin Region CA: Apple Valley CO: Westminster GA: Statewide estimates underway TX: SAWS, Austin, Montgomery County Australia: Melbourne Region Jordan: Countrywide with all 3 utilities