national survey of cii water efficiency programs€¦ · 16/09/2003 · takeaways ̶program...
TRANSCRIPT
NATIONAL SURVEY OF
CII WATER EFFICIENCY
PROGRAMS
A Survey of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Programs
conducted by the
AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee
December 18, 2015
Prepared by: Ben Dziegielewski
1
Purpose of the CII Survey
To obtain information about common practices, programs, data
collection and analytical methodologies currently employed by
utilities with active CII programs, and specifically:
to identify the design and effects of the existing CII efficiency
programs
to compile existing principles and practices for planning,
implementing, and evaluating CII water use and conservation
potential
to provide a basis for development of best management
practices, educational efforts, and conducting additional
research on water use efficiency in the CII sector
2
Survey of Water Utilities
Survey Dates: July 27, 2015 to September 2, 2015
Questionnaire: 53 questions w/skip patterns
Implementation: SurveyMonkey® (online)
Response Count: 383 (U.S. — 350, Canada — 33)
Geographies: 40 states (+DC/Guam)/ 7 Canadian provinces
Representation: Medium and large size utilities
3
Overview
Availability of Conservation and CII Efficiency Programs
Reasons for Program Adoption and Support
Selection of Program Participants
Program Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives
Efficiency Equipment and Devices
Promoting Programs to Customers
Program Evaluation
Barriers to Participation
Options to Improve Programs
Key Findings and Recommendation
4
Are Conservation/CII Programs
Available?
5
Water Conservation Programs
6
282
74
20
4 30
50
100
150
200
250
300
Yes No In Development No In-house Program Not Active
Res
po
nse
Fre
qu
ency
Q1. Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program?
N = 383
CII Efficiency Programs
7
81
98
21
4
78
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Yes No In Development Discontinued No answer
Res
po
nse
Fre
qu
ency
Q7. Does your conservation and efficiency program include subprograms or components directed to the CII subsector?
N = 282
Why are Programs Adopted and How
are they Supported?
8
Reasons for Program Adoption
9
N=264
14%
8%
17%
26%
29%
30%
57%
77%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Other reasons
Approaching capacity of wastewater treatment
Demand approaching capacity of water treatment
Exceeding safe yield of water supply source(s)
Deferral/avoidance of infrastructure investments
Reduction of O&M costs and/or energy costs
Regulatory compliance
Utility stewardship and sustainability
Percent of Respondents
Q2. What are the primary reasons for establishing water conservation or water use efficiency program(s) at your utility?
N = 264
Reasons for Not Having a Program
10
19%
10%
16%
21%
33%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Other
Not enough funding
Need information on how to establish/maintain aprogram
Not enough staff
CII use is not significant enough to warrant aprogram
Percent of Responses
Q33 -- What are the primary reasons for not having (or discontinuing) a water conservation and/or CII program?
N = 205
Takeaways ̶ Program Adoption and Support
Adoption of programs is motivated by “stewardship
and sustainability” and regulatory compliance.
Non-adoption due to low CII conservation potential
and lack of resources.
Allocation of staff and funding are generally low,
on average 1 FTE and $1/capita/year or less.
Programs are financed mostly from operating
budgets
Estimated CII program savings up to 3 mgd but
frequently less than 1.0 gpcd
11
Comment 1:
“Not enough time in
my day to put a
program together.”
Comment 2:
“Political sensitivity
to providing
incentives to for-
profit entities.”
Who do the Programs Target?
12
Eligible CII Subsectors
13
14%
16%
18%
22%
23%
74%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Select groups of CII customers
All industrial customers
All institutional customers
All commercial customers
Multifamily customers
All CII customers
Percent of Respondents
Q11 -- What CII sectors are eligible for (or targeted by) your CII conservation and efficiency program(s)?
N=74
Approaches to Select Participants
14
19%
16%
16%
28%
38%
41%
44%
73%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Other
Does not use specific approaches to target…
Through information obtained through…
By directive (political or regulatory)
High profile customer class (by public…
Customers with a large dominant end use of…
Ease of implementation
Largest water users
Percent of Respondents
Q13 -- What approaches does your utility use to target participants or conservation efforts?
N = 69
15
19%
15%
28%
53%
56%
57%
59%
60%
61%
64%
64%
67%
67%
70%
73%
81%
82%
82%
86%
86%
90%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Military facilities
Justice centers
Warehouses
Golf courses
Public pools and water parks
Food and beverage processing
Auto service and car washes
Retirement/nursing homes
Manufacturing plants
Retail outlets
Religious buildings
Laundries and laundromats
Health care facilities
Mixed use (commercial and…
Lodging and hospitality
Food and beverage service…
Office buildings
Schools and/or colleges
Large landscape areas
Government and municipal…
Percent of Respondents Selecting CII Category
Q12 – Eligible (Targeted) CII Categories
N= 16 - 61 29
36
42
49
49
50
50
52
53
56
57
57
62
64
67
68
74
76
78
82
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Retail outlets
Warehouses
Auto service and car washes
Retirement/nursing homes
Manufacturing plants
Military facilities
Laundries and laundromats
Office buildings
Food and beverage processing
Golf courses
Religious buildings
Health care facilities
Food and beverage service (restaurants)
Government and municipal buildings
Justice centers
Public pools and water parks
Lodging and hospitality
Large landscape areas
Mixed use (commercial and…
Schools and/or colleges
Percent with Rank >=3
Q12. Rate the degree of success in program participation.
Degree of Success:1 = Poor2 = Fair3 = Good4 = Very Good5 = Excellent
Takeaways ̶ Selection of Program Participants
Majority of utilities make all CII customers eligible for their programs
If “targeting” is used, it typically includes the largest water users and/or CII segments offering easy implementation
Most frequently targeted CII customer categories:
Government & municipal buildings/facilities
Schools and/or colleges
Large landscape areas
Food and beverage service (restaurants)
Office buildings
Lodging and hospitality
16
Comment:
“There are a variety of
strategies that work.
Often one stakeholder
group is particularly active
when a new technology
comes along. We work with
professional associations,
with individual property
managers, and through
general marketing.”
Programs/Incentives Delivered and
Equipment/Devices Offered
17
612
2838
4141
5359
697677
8895
0 20 40 60 80 100
OtherEfficiency financing options:
Vendor, distributor and contractor…Recognition incentives:
Recycled water incentivesWater budgets
Direct distribution and/or installationConservation rate design incentives
Onsite technical assistanceTraditional customer rebates or vouchers
Free landscape irrigation evaluationsFree surveys and water audits
Information and education programs
Percent of Respondents Using Mechanism/Incentive
Q14. Use of Delivery Mechanisms/Incentives
N = 18 - 67
Delivery Mechanisms/Incentives
18
Takeaways - Delivery Mechanisms/Incentives
19
Information and education programs are universally used to promote water conservation.
Most frequently used mechanisms/incentives:
free surveys and water audits,
free landscape irrigation evaluations,
traditional customers’ rebates
Top ranked 3 incentives in terms of their success:
conservation rate designs,
water budgets, and
onsite technical assistance
But all 12 types of incentives were ranked as “3” or higher by more than 70 percent of the respondents.
Comment:
Custom rebates
are effective. A
combination of
reasonable
regulations,
education and
incentives works
to change
practices and
equipment over
time.
CII Efficiency Equipment
20
30
41
42
47
59
65
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Process water conversionequipment:
Cooling tower retrofit equipment:
Commercial laundry equipment:
Commercial kitchen equipment:
Irrigation efficiency products:
Plumbing fixtures and products:
Percent of Respondents
Q15. Use of Efficiency Equipment Groups
42
50
57
61
71
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Commercial laundry equipment:
Cooling tower retrofit equipment:
Commercial kitchen equipment:
Process water conversionequipment:
Plumbing fixtures and products:
Irrigation efficiency products:
Percent of Respondents with Rank >=3
Q15. Ranking of Success of Equipment Groups
Degree of Success:
1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent
18
19
23
26
27
28
29
32
32
32
34
49
53
56
56
58
72
75
77
78
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Counter-flow washing systems
Irrigation conduit repair/replacement
pH meters
High-pressure low-volume sprays
Flow sensors
Conductivity controllers
Makeup and blowdown water meters
Connectionless food steamers
Drip irrigation equipment
Flow control valves
Multi-load washers
Irrigation sensor devices (SMS)
High-efficiency clothes washers
Irrigation controllers
Irrigation nozzles and heads
Urinals
Pre-rinse spray valves
Showerheads
Toilets
Faucet aerators
Percent of Respondents Using Device
Q 15. Use of efficiency devices
CII Efficiency Devices
21
29
30
43
44
45
55
56
57
58
59
61
65
69
71
71
73
73
74
75
84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Conductivity controllers
Connectionless food steamers
pH meters
Makeup and blowdown water meters
Flow control valves
Counter-flow washing systems
High-pressure low-volume sprays
Multi-load washers
Irrigation conduit repair/replacement
Pre-rinse spray valves
Irrigation sensor devices (SMS)
High-efficiency clothes washers
Irrigation nozzles and heads
Flow sensors
Irrigation controllers
Urinals
Showerheads
Faucet aerators
Drip irrigation equipment
Toilets
Percent of Respondents with Rank >=3
Q 15. Rate the degree of success.
Degree of Success:
1 = Poor
2 = Fair
3 = Good
4 = Very Good
5 = Excellent
Takeaways - Efficiency Equipment and Devices
Plumbing fixtures and irrigation efficiency products
most frequently used types of equipment
highest success ranks
Top four most frequently used efficiency devices include:
faucet aerators
toilets
showerheads
pre-rinse spray valves
50% or more respondents also used: urinals, irrigation
nozzles and heads, irrigation controllers, and high-
efficiency clothes washers
Toilets are “universally” successful and prevalent 22
Comment:
“We do not offer indoor
fixtures any longer due to
near saturation after
many years of free
product and installation.
We do irrigation smart
water management
systems for large sites in
custom rebates but do not
give variances for
watering "to ET." We have
had recent acceleration of
landscape and irrigation
changes in our market
with steady drops in
irrigation water usage at
commercial properties.”
How are Programs Promoted and
Evaluated?
23
Promoting Programs to CII Customers
24
29%
21%
35%
39%
40%
42%
47%
61%
63%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Other
Incentives to CII consultants/firms
Telephone solicitation
Newsletters
Facility manager solicitation
Customer bill insert
Industry/association meetings and gatherings
Presentations to professional organizations
Direct mail
Percent of Participants
Q18 -- How does your utility promote programs to CII customers?
CII Program Performance Criteria
25
5%
8%
33%
48%
62%
65%
71%
73%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Other
We do not assess the effectiveness
Cost savings
Financial (payback period, ROI)
Water savings to utility
Customer satisfaction and awareness
Participation rates
Water savings to customer
Percent of Respondents
Q22 -- How does your utility assess the effectiveness of its CII programs?
Takeaways – Promoting Programs to
Customers and Program Evaluation Multiple methods to promote programs:
Direct mail and presentations to professional organizations
Presentations at industry/association meetings
70% of respondents use program participation rates
and customer water savings to evaluate performance
Customer satisfaction and awareness are also important
75% of respondents use trend analysis (water use
before and after) to measure water savings
> 50% of respondents use benefit-cost analysis
But only 30 percent use cost as a performance criteria
26
Comment:
“We have a total
acre foot goal for
conservation for the
year. In the future
we will also be
tracking a metric of
average bill per CII
customer to
continue to steady
downward trend.”
What are Program Barriers and
Opportunities to Improve?
27
67
37
50
50
61
63
66
71
73
76
80
86
88
90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Other
Technology not proven/available
Customers perceive too many bureaucratic hurdles to participation
Customer perception of product performance
Legal/ownership/landlord-tenancy restriction
Investing in energy efficiency first
Low cost of water and wastewater services
Smaller customers don't have the time to evaluate options
Complexity of upgrade or change
Low general interest from customers / lack of programs
Perception of inadequate return on investment (long paybacks)
Costs of retrofits to the participant versus incentive offered
Lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers' budgets
Difficulty in customers getting high-level buy-in within organization
Percent of Respondents Ranking =>3
Q30. Rate the importance of each Key Barrier to CII program participation.
Barriers to Program Participation
28
Ratings:
1 = Unimportant
2 = Slightly Important
3 = Important
4 = Very Important
5 = Critical
Takeaways – Barriers to Implementation
Ten different barriers were rated as “important,” “very
important” or “critical” by more that 60% of respondents
Potential barrier of “technology not proven/available”
received the lowest score (least important)
The key barriers are not technological but financial and
economic or related to the lack of commitment to achieving
water-use efficiency:
Difficulty in customers getting high-level buy-in within their
organizations
Lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers'
budgets
Costs of retrofits to the participant versus incentive offered
29
Comment:
“The majority of
businesses are not water
account customers, and as
such, they do not receive
a utility bill directly.
Many businesses occupy a
unit in a larger complex,
as with retail, office,
shopping centers, and
medical buildings. In
addition, most businesses
are not directly
responsible for managing
their outdoor water use.”
Suggestions to Improve CII Programs
30
15%
20%
29%
34%
39%
49%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Other
Move to online submission of forms vs. paper
Make simpler/streamline/less paperwork
Change type of incentive
Additional examples/case studies demonstrating ROI andperformance
Change value of incentive
Improve marketing/outreach strategies
Percent of Respondents
Q31. Please indicate how you think your utility's CII program could be improved?
N = 59
Takeaways – Options to Improve Programs
70% believe their utility's CII program could be improved by
refining their marketing and outreach strategies
Direct mail and presentations to professional organizations
Presentations at industry/association meetings
Many wished to change (presumably increase) the value of
incentives
Costs of retrofits to the participant versus incentive offered
Survey responses and comments point out the need for:
Additional examples/case studies
Streamlining of CII custom rebates
Creating standardized incentive descriptions and program
names for utility adoption
31
Comment:
Need for “case studies
that can be used as
‘cookie-cutter’ basis for
rebates, i.e. upgrade of
condenser in x type of
business saves x gpd and
costs about x, so rebate
should be X. It means
customer doesn't need
to track down all that
data and flat rebate is
defined, so as long as
they can show invoice
for work that exceeds
rebate amount - done.”
Key Findings/Observations and
Recommendations for Future Work
32
Key Findings and Observations
1. Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency
generally accepted among water utilities.
Availability of CII water conservation/water efficiency programs <20%
Availability of staff and budgets to support CII programs is low.
2. Although utilities typically target the largest water users, the
most frequently targeted CII categories include:
Government and municipal buildings
Large landscape areas
Schools and colleges
Also, office buildings, restaurants and hotels
3. Information/education programs are universally used alongside
free surveys and audits / landscape irrigation evaluations
traditional customer rebates
33
Key Findings and Observations, cont.
4. CII programs tend to focus on indoor fixtures/domestic uses.
The complexity of some CII end uses likely affects the nature of the equipment and incentives used in the design of the CII programs
5. Approaches used to evaluate program success focus on water savings to customers and participation rates.
6. Data on CII facilities useful for evaluating program success are obtained directly from customers and less frequently from external sources.
7. Expansion water conservation/efficiency programs to include CII customers must confront a number of barriers:
Difficult obtaining a high-level buy-in within customer organizations Lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers' budgets Inadequacy of incentives offered relative to costs to the participant
34
Recommendations
1. “Streamlining” or “standardizing” program design and
implementation
To enhance adoption of CII efficiency programs by utilities.
2. More data is needed on costs and expected/achieved water
savings from water-efficient equipment found in CII sector
To help inform CII program design and build customer demand.
3. A follow-up research should be undertaken to collect program-
specific information about existing CII efficiency programs
To help better understand and overcome perceived barriers and
utility recommendations for program improvements.
4. Future surveys of utility CII Efficiency programs should explore
the reasons for selection of program participants, delivery
mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices and equipment.35
AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and
Technology Committee (WEPTC)
Lindsey Geiger, AWWA Project Manager
Lauren Wasserstrom, AWWA Project Manager
Lisa Krentz, Hazen & Sawyer, Project Manager
Veronica Blette, U.S. EPA, Project Manager
Bill McDonnell, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Frank Kinder, Colorado Springs Utilities
Kent Sovocool, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Mary Ann Dickinson, Alliance for Water Efficiency
Robert Wanvestraut, South Florida Water Management District
36
Thank you
For more information please contact:
Lindsey Geiger, AWWA Project Manager, American Water Works Association
Lisa Krentz, WEPTC Chair and Project Manager, Hazen & Sawyer
Veronica Blette, WEPTC Project Manager, US EPA