aw.140gpcd.presentation

8/7/2019 Aw.140GPCD.Presentation

1/26

Austin Water UtilityAustin Water Utility140 Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)140 Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)

Conservation PlanConservation Plan

January 27, 2011


2/26

Presentation Outline

Purpose, Background & Context

Overview of the 140 Plan

Focus and Next Steps

2


3/26

3

Purpose

May 2010 City Council accepted the Citizens WaterConservation Implementation Task Force (CWCITF) reportand directed AWU to develop an action plan to reduce

water use to an average of 140 GPCD by 2020.

The resolution calls for the plan to include:

Technical and cost-benefit evaluations of recommendations

A 10 year conservation action plan that incorporates educationalprograms, marketing & outreach and cost beneficial strategies

An implementation schedule, responsibility and estimated watersavings and costs

An analysis to assist City Council in assessing whether the goalis achievable

Report back to City Council

Written report with plan details

Presentation overview


4/26

Austin Conservation History

Strong customer incentives in 1990s and 2000s

Implementation began in 2007

Aggressive conservation rates since 1994

2006 Council goal to reduce peak use 1% per yearover 10 years

Implementation began in 2007

Mandatory watering restrictions

Reclaimed water system investments

Plumbing Code changes

Implemented 5th tier for residential high users in 2010

4


5/26

5

GPCD from FY 1990 to 2010

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

FY

1990

FY

1992

FY

1994

FY

1996

FY

1998

FY

2000

FY

2002

FY

2004

FY

2006

FY

2008

FY

2010

GPCD


6/26

140 Plan Background

Where does the 140 number come from?

2004 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) reportrecommended Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Report suggests goal to reduce water use by at least 1%annually until reaching 140 gallons per capita per day

TWDB recommended using GPCD to measure internalprogress, not to compare between cities

Austins Plan and TWDB Recommendations Through historical and current conservation programs,

Austin has addressed 21 of 22 TWDB BMPs

The 140 Plan reduces water use by 1.52% per yearaverage

Pending legislation (SB 181) recommends movingto uniform GPCD reporting

6


7/26

140 Plan Overview

7


8/26

8

Developing the 140 Plan

Staff analyzed over 100 recommendations fromthe CWCITF

Quantified savings and costs using research from othercities, AWWA, Alliance for Water Efficiency, WaterResearch Foundation

Established six overarching program goals used

in selecting strategies Reach 140 GPCD goal by 2020

Reduce peak demand

Pursue cost-effective strategies

Ensure conservation reaches all customer sectors

Ensure consumer awareness of conservation

Promote innovation in water conservation


9/26

Developing the 140 Plan

Staff screened CWCITF potential measures usinga tool developed by the Alliance for Water

Efficiency Selected strategies showed eitherpositive

benefit-cost ratio orcomplemented one of the

other program goals. After screening, final package of strategies

analyzed for 10-year financial impact

9


10/26

New Conservation Strategies

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Irrigation Design Review

Limitations on Irrigated Area

Water Waste Administrative Enforcement

Retrofit Packages for Commercial Sectors

Retrofit Packages for Institutions

A/C Condensate

Extend 2x w eek watering schedule

Reclaimed Program Marketing

Stormw ater Reuse Ordinance

Large Meter Testing Program

Pilot Test Irrigation Devices

Improve Irrigation Audit Follow-up

Estim ated GPCD Reduction by 2020


11/26

Projected Savings by Task Force

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

GPCDS

avings

CWCITF

2007 WCTF

Existing


12/26

Easy-Moderate Implementation

Shift some funding from incentives to water wasteenforcement

Extend mandatory watering schedule to year-roundfor residential customers

Market to customers along existing reclaimed lines

Pursue contracts to market retrofit packages tocommercial and institutional sectors

Transition to administrative enforcement of waterwaste fines

Implement marketing & education strategies

12


13/26

Additional Stakeholder Input Needed

Impose limits on irrigated area forresidential and commercial customers

Implement irrigation design plan review

Implement conservation rates forcommercial & multifamily customers

13


14/26

CWCITF Recommendation Examples

Residential Customers

Limit new permanent irrigation systems to no more than2.5 times building footprint

Require design plan review of new systems Would apply to both new development and existing

properties installing a new system or major modificationsto existing system

Sample ratios: Mueller development ~ 1.6 ratio of landscape to footprint

Avery Ranch ~ 2.9 ratio of landscape to footprint

Circle C ~ 3.4 ratio of landscape to footprint

Commercial & Multifamily Customers Limit new permanent irrigation systems to no more than

1.5 times the required landscape area

Require design plan review of new systems

14


15/26

140 GPCD Plan

Average Per Capita Demands

15

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

G

allo

n

s

p

er

C

apit

a

p

er

D

ay

(G

P

C

D)

With Program Savings

Dry Year (+10%)

Wet Year (-15%)

140 Goal


16/26

Financial Impact

16


17/26

140 GPCD Plan Financial Impacts

Total Water Rate Impact of

Achieving 140 GPCD by 2020 25% to 35%

In 2020, revenue will be reduced by approximately $100 millionon an annual basis

Less: Rate Impacts Included

In Previous Forecast 7% to 11% Reclaimed Water

Other Conservation Programs

Net Additional Water Rate

Increase Through 2020 18% to 24%

Average Residential Customer

Water Bill Impact by 2020 $9 to $10 /mo

17


18/26

140 GPCD Plan Financial Impacts

Possible strategies for addressing revenue lossassociated with 140 plan:

Increase rates

Operating Cost reductions/Service reductions

Create new fees (Conservation Rider) to offset lost revenue

Increase development and other fees

Possible strategies for addressing increasedrevenue volatility associated with conservation

Higher reserves

Higher minimum charge

Increase blocks 1 & 2 more than 3-5

Mid-Year / Emergency rate changes during periods of very lowusage

Add a variable component to rates that could be adjustedperiodically as system-wide usage increases or decreases

18


19/26

Focus and Next Steps

19


20/26

Summary

The report provided includes the detail on the items calledfor in the Council Resolution:

Technical and cost-benefit evaluations for Task Forcerecommendations

A 10 year conservation action plan that incorporates educationalprograms, marketing & outreach and cost beneficial strategies

An implementation schedule, responsibility and estimated watersavings and costs

An analysis to assist City Council in assessing whether the goalis achievable

20


21/26

21

Next Steps

Continue implementation of 2007 Task ForceStrategies

Closely monitor GPCD Legislation Continue involvement in LCRA Water

Management Planning Process


22/26

LCRA Water Management Plan

Austins water supply comes from a combination of:

State-granted surface water rights (run-of-river)

Water supply contracts with LCRA (providing firm back-up to

ROR rights)

Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) operates and managesthe Highland Lakes system for water supply, flood control, and

other purposes

LCRAs State-approved Water Management Plan (WMP):

Guides Highland Lakes water management for all LCRA customers

who use stored water Sets out decision making process for release of water downstream for

agricultural uses, primarily rice irrigation, based on the combinedstorage of Lakes Buchanan and Travis

Includes drought management plan and other components

22


23/26

2009 Highland Lakes and Run-of-River Water UseIncluding Lake Evaporation

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Emerg

ency

Releas

es

Austi

nEnerg

y*

Recre

ation

al&Fir

mIrrigatio

n

Industria

l/Stea

m-Ele

ctric

-Other

Envir

onment

Austin-

Municip

al

Othe

rMunicip

alities

Highlan

dLak

esEva

poratio

n

Agric

ulturalW

aterUse

WaterUse(AF/yr)

Stored (Lake) Water Run of River Water

City of Austin -Municipal Use

* STP water use included in

Industrial/Steam-Electric-Other** Total water use includes stored

water & run-of-river water

49%

15%

6%

15%

3%

10%


24/26

Water Conservation and Lake Levels

Under the current WMP:

On the supply-side, water that Austin conserves becomes

available for other uses and does not necessarily remain inthe Highland Lakes

The fuller the lakes are at the beginning of the year thegreater the likelihood that more water will be available forinterruptible agricultural water releases

Open supply when combined storage is above 1.4 M AF/yr onJanuary 1st each year

WMP revision process is underway with the City ofAustin involved as a firm water stakeholder

Revisions anticipated to be submitted to TCEQ by late Fall2012, TCEQ will then review and conduct formal public inputprocess

Key outcome is to strengthen the link between conservation

and lake levels 24


25/26

25

Next Steps

Continue implementation of 2007 Task ForceStrategies

Closely monitor GPCD Legislation Continue involvement in LCRA Water

Management Planning Process

Future Council Work Session for furtherdiscussion


26/26

26

Questions

aw.140gpcd.presentation

Documents