Post on 09-Mar-2020
Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting
Environmental assessments
Demand management options
19 June 2017
SWOX WRZ
SWA WRZ
Agenda
10:00 Welcome & introduction Chris Lambert (Chair)
10:10 Environmental Assessment: Overview of the approach
John Sanders/Ben Stansfield
11:00 Breakout session Table Discussion
11:50 Short Break
12.00 Assessments of specific options Break-out format
12.45 Summary and Next Steps John Sanders/Ben Stansfield
13:00 Lunch
13:30 Demand management Marissa Vandonkelaar
14:45 General discussion
15:00 Meeting Close
Exploring future options
5
Resilience assessments
Environmental performance
Bottom up risk and updated cost
WRMP19 rejection register
Pro
gra
mm
e
ap
pra
isa
l
Methodology reports
Option feasibility
reports
Cross option investment needs
Phase 1
Co
nc
ep
tua
l d
es
ign
rep
ort
fo
r
co
nstr
ain
ed
lis
t
Co
nstr
ain
ed
lis
t o
f
optio
ns
Sc
ree
nin
g r
ep
ort
Ad
va
nc
ed
pro
gra
mm
e
inve
sti
gati
on
s
WRMP14
options
Screening
methodology
Option
investigation
needs
New options
3rd party
options
Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Planning
Permission
Pre
ferr
ed p
rog
ram
me
Outline
Design
John Sanders & Ben Stansfield - Ricardo
Environmental Assessment:
Approach
Exploring future options
7
Resilience assessments
Environmental performance
Bottom up risk and updated cost
WRMP19 rejection register
Pro
gra
mm
e
ap
pra
isa
l
Methodology reports
Option feasibility
reports
Cross option investment needs
Phase 1
Co
nc
ep
tua
l d
es
ign
rep
ort
fo
r
co
nstr
ain
ed
lis
t
Co
nstr
ain
ed
lis
t o
f
optio
ns
Sc
ree
nin
g r
ep
ort
Ad
va
nc
ed
pro
gra
mm
e
inve
sti
gati
on
s
WRMP14
options
Screening
methodology
Option
investigation
needs
New options
3rd party
options
Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Planning
Permission
Pre
ferr
ed p
rog
ram
me
Outline
Design
Objectives for this morning
• To recap the approach to environmental assessment of the
WRMP
• To set out the key findings from the Strategic Environmental
Assessment, Habitats Regulations Assessment and Water
Framework Directive Assessment of the options in the
Constrained List
• To explain the layout of the assessments to assist
stakeholders in their subsequent review of the reports
• To discuss and gain initial feedback on the assessment
findings
Statutory framework provides focus of the approach
9
Habitats Regulations
Assessment
Will the option adversely affect any
European designated conservation
sites?
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Beneficial & adverse effects of each option are assessed against a broad range of
environmental & social topics (e.g. biodiversity, heritage, health)
Water Framework Directive
Assessment
Will the option lead to adverse effects on
the biology and chemistry of water
bodies or their physical characteristics?
Assessment of option elements, options,
programmes and WRMP as a whole
Compliance with statutory framework
Habitats
Regulations
Assessment
Strategic
Environmental
Assessment
Water Framework
Directive
Assessment
European Legislation
Defra
Guiding
Principles
Water Resources
Planning
Guideline
National Regulatory Guidance
Best Practice Guidance
National Legislation
Countryside &
Rights of Way Act
UKWIR Guidance
SEA & HRA for
WRMPs
Wildlife &
Countryside Act
NERC
Act
Various Water
Acts
11
Approach to Environmental & Social Assessment
WFD
SEA Conceptual
Design
HRA
Constrained
Option
Elements
Initial screening
of wide range of
options
Fine
Screening
Assessment
of WRZ
programmes
Assessment
of whole
plan
Stakeholder consultation and engagement throughout the process
Informs
programme
appraisal
WFD
SEA
HRA
Feasibility
Reports
Env Assessment
Reports
Fine Screening
Report
Key Activities to Date • Assessment methodology consultation – January to December 2016
• SEA Scoping Report consultation – July to September 2016
• Consultation feedback – majority agreed that environmental valuation (£) of
environmental effects would not materially improve the assessment process
• Option specific environmental assessments – e.g. Severn Thames Transfer
Water Quality & Ecology Report; Vyrnwy river support environmental studies
• SEA, HRA and WFD assessments of feasible options – Feasibility Reports
• SEA, HRA and WFD assessments informed environmental dimension at
Fine Screening of option elements – Fine Screening Report
• Detailed SEA, HRA and WFD assessments of all Constrained List option
elements – Environmental Assessment Reports now being published
12
13
CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN
MITIGATION &
ENHANCEMENT
FEASIBILITY
REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL
& SOCIAL
DATASETS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES
HRA
SCREENING
WFD
ASSESSMENT
SEA
Environmental Assessment – Building Blocks
FINE SCREENING
REPORT
Progression of environmental assessment
throughout WRMP development to date
Criteria
Be
ckto
n
Estu
ary
Sou
th
Erit
h
Mar
she
s/
Cro
ssn
ess
Estu
ary
Sou
th
- Th
ame
sme
ad
Estu
ary
Sou
th
– C
ross
ne
ss
Dir
ect
Su
pp
ly
Option Capacity (Ml/d) 150 150 300 150 300 75
Planning & environmental criteria
Planning policy and history Land Use and Land Use Quality Floodplain encroachment (loss of floodplain / need for compensation storage)
Landscape Character Sensitivity Views and Visual Amenity Employment and local economy Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Opportunity for biodiversity improvement Archaeology and Historic Environment Non-traffic impact of construction on local residents Impact on recreation Water resources & water quality STAGE 3 ASSESSMENT PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASS PASS
FEASIBILITY
REPORT
Sub-dimension Desalination
Be
ck
ton
Th
am
esm
ea
d
Cr
ossn
ess
150 Ml/d 150-300
Ml/d 75 Ml/d
Environmental & Social Assessment
SEA ◎◑r ◎◑r ◎◑r
HRA ○ ○ ○
WFD ○ ○ ○
Cumulative effects ○ ○ ○
FINE
SCREENING
REPORT
Progression of environmental assessment
throughout WRMP development to date
Criteria
Be
ckto
n
Estu
ary
Sou
th
Erit
h
Mar
she
s/
Cro
ssn
ess
Estu
ary
Sou
th
- Th
ame
sme
ad
Estu
ary
Sou
th
– C
ross
ne
ss
Dir
ect
Su
pp
ly
Option Capacity (Ml/d) 150 150 300 150 300 75
Planning & environmental criteria
Planning policy and history Land Use and Land Use Quality Floodplain encroachment (loss of floodplain / need for compensation storage)
Landscape Character Sensitivity Views and Visual Amenity Employment and local economy Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Opportunity for biodiversity improvement Archaeology and Historic Environment Non-traffic impact of construction on local residents Impact on recreation Water resources & water quality STAGE 3 ASSESSMENT PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASS PASS
FEASIBILITY
REPORT
Sub-dimension Desalination
Be
ck
ton
Th
am
esm
ea
d
Cr
ossn
ess
150 Ml/d 150-300
Ml/d 75 Ml/d
Environmental & Social Assessment
SEA ◎◑r ◎◑r ◎◑r
HRA ○ ○ ○
WFD ○ ○ ○
Cumulative effects ○ ○ ○
FINE
SCREENING
REPORT
CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN
MITIGATION &
ENHANCEMENT
Progression of environmental assessment
throughout WRMP development to date
HRA
SCREENING
WFD
ASSESSMENT
SEA
Criteria
Be
ckto
n
Estu
ary
Sou
th
Erit
h
Mar
she
s/
Cro
ssn
ess
Estu
ary
Sou
th
- Th
ame
sme
ad
Estu
ary
Sou
th
– C
ross
ne
ss
Dir
ect
Su
pp
ly
Option Capacity (Ml/d) 150 150 300 150 300 75
Planning & environmental criteria
Planning policy and history Land Use and Land Use Quality Floodplain encroachment (loss of floodplain / need for compensation storage)
Landscape Character Sensitivity Views and Visual Amenity Employment and local economy Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Opportunity for biodiversity improvement Archaeology and Historic Environment Non-traffic impact of construction on local residents Impact on recreation Water resources & water quality STAGE 3 ASSESSMENT PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASS PASS
FEASIBILITY
REPORT Sub-dimension Desalination
Be
ck
ton
Th
am
esm
ea
d
Cr
ossn
ess
150 Ml/d 150-300
Ml/d 75 Ml/d
Environmental & Social Assessment
SEA ◎◑r ◎◑r ◎◑r
HRA ○ ○ ○
WFD ○ ○ ○
Cumulative effects ○ ○ ○
FINE
SCREENING
REPORT
CONCEPTUAL
DESIGN
MITIGATION &
ENHANCEMENT
Progression of environmental assessment
throughout WRMP development to date
18
Network Element
Water
Reuse
Desalination
New
Reservoir
Severn-
Thames
Transfer
Reuse
plant
WTW London
Ring Main
Desal
plant London
Ring Main
Resource
Element
Raw Water Conveyance
Element
Raw Water
System Element
Treatment
Element
WTW London
Ring Main
WTW London
Ring Main
River regulation
London raw
water storage
London raw
water storage
London raw
water storage
Assessment by option element at this stage to inform the programme appraisal model
Detailed assessment by SEA topic
SEA topic Key considerations
Biodiversity, Fauna and Flora wildlife sites, species diversity,
habitats, invasive species
HRA & WFD input
Population and Human Health noise, air quality, well-being,
recreation
Material Assets & Resource Use waste minimisation, energy efficiency
Water water quality, flood risk, river flows,
WFD input
Soil, Geology and Land Use soil erosion, agricultural land take,
geological features
Air and Climate air pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions
Archaeology & Cultural Heritage heritage assets and their settings
Landscape & Visual Amenity landscapes, townscapes and their
settings
20
Assessment of option elements after taking account of mitigation & enhancement measures
• Conceptual design report prepared for each option element - level of
design reflects strategic nature of the WRMP
• Includes the mitigation measures identified from the environmental
assessment
• Covers both temporary effects (mainly from construction) and permanent
effects
• Mitigation includes consideration of environmental enhancement
opportunities
• Mitigation measures have been costed and included in overall cost of the
option element – to ensure “like for like” £/Ml AIC comparison
• Assessment of adverse and beneficial effects for SEA, HRA and WFD is
the residual effects after application of mitigation and enhancement
21
SEA assessment of adverse and beneficial effects
22
SEA assessment of adverse and beneficial effects
23
Environmental metrics: graded scales for programme appraisal modelling
24
Approach to assigning adverse effects grades
Minimum grade of -9 applies where:
• Major adverse effect on internationally designated site or feature identified in
SEA
• HRA shows Likely Significant Effects on European Site
• WFD deterioration between status class likely
Minimum grade of -7 applies where:
• Major adverse effect on nationally designated site or feature identified in SEA
• HRA shows possible risk of Likely Significant Effects on European Site
• Risk of WFD deterioration between status class
25
Grades are assessed directly from SEA, HRA and WFD assessments
26
Environmental Metrics are NOT a replacement for SEA, HRA and WFD assessment
• Environmental metrics are only used to inform programme appraisal model
– numerical model requires numerical values
• Enables model to hold information on the environmental effects of each
option element alongside other criteria
• Full SEA, HRA and WFD assessment will still be carried out on the
OPTIONS that are determined from the modelling
• Full SEA, HRA and WFD assessment will be carried out on the
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMES derived from the programme appraisal
• These detailed assessments will inform the decision-making to determine
the “best value” programme of options – not the Environmental Metrics
27
Questions?
Ben Stansfield - Ricardo
Environmental Assessment:
Key Findings
29
SEA findings: introduction
Assessments have been carried out for each of the option elements
Each option element assessed against range of SEA topics and objectives
Detailed assessment table produced along with assessment summary and
environmental metrics (beneficial and adverse)
Option element summaries have been collated together into an overall
summary with option elements ranked according to the scale of the adverse
and beneficial effects
SEA findings: example for the Teddington Direct River Abstraction option
Option elements
• We have assessed all resource options according to their elemental parts
• Teddington Direct River Abstraction comprises 3 elements as follows:
Element A: Tertiary treatment
of effluent at Mogden Sewage
Treatment Works
Element B: Conveyance of
treated effluent from Mogden
STW to the River Thames
Element C: Conveyance
of the water resource from
Teddington to the
reservoirs in the Lee
Valley
Element A: Tertiary treatment of effluent at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works
Engineering Scope Tertiary treatment of 300Ml/d of Mogden effluent at Mogden STW.
Engineering
Components
Effluent abstraction pumping station – total 2,120 kW power rating
Waste return pumping station - 55kW power rating
Nitrifying Rapid Gravity Filters (RGFs) with ferric sulphate addition
3 No 9.6m deep storm water tanks (2 No 70m x 45m, 1 No 70m x 22.5m)
Permanent land area of 22,150 m2
New power supply of 2,300 KVA
Resource Benefit 268 Ml/d [DYAA]
Engineering Scope Treated water from the Mogden tertiary treatment plant will be pumped to a shaft and
subsequently gravitated through a tunnel to discharge into the River Thames. This flow will
supplement the flow upstream of Teddington Weir
Engineering
Components
Effluent abstraction pumping station - 148 kW power rating
Tunnel 3.5m diameter and length 4.5km
Drive shaft 12.5m diameter and depth 17m
Intermediate shaft diameter 10.5m//depth 17m; reception shaft diameter 10.5m/depth 20m
Pipeline from tunnel to river outfall 1.7m diameter and 40m long
Outfall and screening structure
Permanent land area of 1,400 m2
New power supply of 90 KVA
Element B: Conveyance of treated water from Mogden STWs to the River Thames
Engineering
Scope
A new abstraction from the River Thames upstream of the new Mogden effluent transfer
discharge location. River water will be pumped into the Thames Lee Tunnel and conveyed to
Lockwood for treatment at Coppermills WTW.
Engineering
Components
Intake structure and screens
Raw water abstraction pumping station - 640 kW power rating
Permanent land area of 1,200 m2
One 7.5m diameter shaft at a depth of 38m
Site security and landscaping
New power supply of 600KVA and standby generation
Element C: Pumped abstraction from River Thames upstream of Teddington Weir
to the existing Thames Lee Tunnel (for conveyance to Lockwood Reservoir)
35
Overview of SEA findings Earlier detailed screening assessments has eliminated option elements with
unacceptable environmental and social effects
Adverse environmental effects of option elements are considered to be
within acceptable boundaries in most cases
Some exceptions – conceptual design to be reviewed to assess scope for
change to design and/or additional mitigation measures
In general, the largest option elements give rise to greater adverse effects
AND greater beneficial effects
Demand management and catchment management option elements
generally have the lowest adverse environmental effects while delivering
some minor to moderate beneficial effects
Smaller supply option elements (notably groundwater sources) have a lower
magnitude of both adverse and beneficial effects than the larger, more
strategic schemes
36
37
38
Questions?
39
Feedback on Key Assessment Findings
Facilitated Table Discussions
11:00-11:50
Break ~ 10 minutes
41
Feedback on specific scheme elements
Break-out format
12:00-12:45
John Sanders - Ricardo
Environmental Assessment:
Summary and Next Steps
43
Next steps Information on the environmental assessment findings of each of the option
elements will be available on the Thames Water website
Opportunity for you to review and provide feedback to Thames Water over
the next 2 weeks (ideally by 26 June)
Feedback will inform the finalisation of the assessments
Environmental assessment findings will be used to inform the programme
appraisal modelling over the coming weeks
Subsequently, environmental assessment will be carried out on:
The options selected within the alternative programmes selected
from the programme appraisal process
The alternative programmes (including cumulative effects
assessment)
These assessment findings will be used to help inform decisions on the
preferred, ‘best value’ programme
44
Questions?
Enjoy your lunch ! Please be back at 1:30
Managing the growing demand for water
46
Objectives of this session.
• To present the benefits and assumptions behind
the Feasible Demand Management Options
• To present the Average Incremental Cost (AIC) of
the Feasible Demand Management Options
• To outline next steps in the development of
Demand Management Programmes and how
these are considered alongside resource options
• To provide the opportunity for discussion and
comment on this work
47
Every day we put ~2,600 Ml of water into supply. Where does it go?
48
How do we decide on the best demand management options?
49
.
Draft Screening Report Published
August 2016
Feedback sought from stakeholders on the options and screening process
Responded to Stakeholder Comments
February 2017
Outlined the method to develop demand management programmes
Updated Screening Report Published
March 2017
Detailed presentation on non-potable reuse, metering and water efficiency
Feasible Options Paper Published
June 2017
Collation of assumptions and benefit data on feasible options
Leakage Metering Water Efficiency Incentive Schemes Non-Potable
Pressure
Management
Metering Houses
Only Smarter Home Visit
Targetted
Incentives Scheme
Rainwater
Harvesting
Mains ReplacementMetering Blocks of
Flats (Bulks) Only
Smarter Business
Visit
Stormwater
Harvesting
Metering Houses
and Bulks
Housing
Association Fix
Greywater
Recycling
Metering Houses,
bulks and
individual flats
Wastage Fixes (e.g.
leaky loos)
Customer Side
Leakage Repair
Intensive area
based promotional
campaigns
Innovative Tarrifs
(feasible post-smart
metering)
Enhanced Active
Leakage Control -
DMA Enhancement
and DMA
Enhancement Plus
Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer
Side Leakage Repair + Smarter Home Visit
Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer Side
Leakage Repair + Housing Association Fix
Metering Houses + Customer Side Leakage Repair +
Smarter Home Visit
Feasible Options
50
Black Text = Options
included in WRMP14 and
reassessed for inclusion in
WRMP19
Green Text = New Options
for WRMP19
51
District Metered Areas
Leakage (Ml/d)
Usage & Wastage (Ml/d)
Feasible Options
Costs (£)
Benefits (Ml/d)
Scenarios
Target Levels of
Demand Management
Inte
gra
ted D
em
and M
odel
(ID
M)
Output
Mix of Investment
Options
Investment Spend per
Option
Levels of Leakage,
Usage & Wastage
EB
SD
(E
co
no
mic
s o
f B
ala
nc
ing
Su
pp
ly a
nd
De
ma
nd
)
Optimised
demand
programmes
How do we develop Demand Management Programmes?
IDM
52
Demand Management in the Preferred Plan
EBSD+
IRAS/ MCS
• Range of Demand
Management
programmes
• Constrained list of
Resource options
Optimise Validate Programme Appraisal
Leakage Metering Water Efficiency Incentive Schemes Non-Potable
Pressure
Management
Metering Houses
Only Smarter Home Visit
Targetted
Incentives Scheme
Rainwater
Harvesting
Mains ReplacementMetering Blocks of
Flats (Bulks) Only
Smarter Business
Visit
Stormwater
Harvesting
Metering Houses
and Bulks
Housing
Association Fix
Greywater
Recycling
Metering Houses,
bulks and
individual flats
Wastage Fixes (e.g.
leaky loos)
Customer Side
Leakage Repair
Intensive area
based promotional
campaigns
Innovative Tarrifs
(feasible post-smart
metering)
Enhanced Active
Leakage Control -
DMA Enhancement
and DMA
Enhancement Plus
Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer
Side Leakage Repair + Smarter Home Visit
Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer Side
Leakage Repair + Housing Association Fix
Metering Houses + Customer Side Leakage Repair +
Smarter Home Visit
Feasible Options – What Data do we input to IDM?
53
Black Text = Options
included in WRMP14 and
reassessed for inclusion in
WRMP19
Green Text = New Options
for WRMP19
Leakage
54
• 7 feasible interventions
Option 1: Pressure Management
55
Assumptions:
• Leakage reduction is proportional to the percentage
pressure drop based on data from Water Net.
− i.e. a 10% pressure drop = 10% leakage reduction.
• DMA’s with average minimum pressure <30m are not
considered.
• Pressure reduction can be no greater than 15m to avoid
customer complaints and excessive tall building booster
installations.
• Pressure Management infrastructure has a 20 year life
Option 2 to 5: Mains Replacement
56
Reduction in Background Leakage
• Small, inaudible, non-visible leaks that run continuously
• 97% reduction in background leakage achieved by replacing distribution mains and communication pipes
• Benefit must be maintained by managing the deterioration of residual leakage
• Asset life of 80 years
Reduction in Burst Based Leakage OPEX
• Leaks and bursts with moderate to high flow rates, audible or visible
• 80% reduction in Active Leakage Control Detection and Repair OPEX
Option 6 and 7: DMA Enhancement and DMA Enhancement Plus
57
• To build on traditional methods to achieve more efficient leakage
detection and repair
DMA Enhancement Plus
DMA Enhancement
Metering
58
• 9 feasible interventions
Option 1 to 9: Metering Penetration
59
Property Type Internal-external split Survey to Fit Ratio
External Internal External Internal
Detached 85% 15% 97% 29%
Semi-detached 80% 20% 98% 20%
Terraced 83% 16% 98% 20%
Small Block of Flats (Dwellings) 25% 75% 81% 19%
Large Block of Flats (Dwellings) 17% 83% 73% 19%
Small Block of Flats (Bulk) 100% n/a 65%* n/a
Large Block of Flats (Bulk) 100% n/a 65%* n/a
• The extent of meter penetration depends on the Internal/External Split
and Survey to Fit Ratio for each property type
Option 1 to 9: Usage and Wastage Benefit
60
• Average usage reduction = 17% per property
• Behaviour changes occur over the customer ‘metering journey’
− 10% with the installation of a meter
− 50% by the end of the first year of meter installation
− 100% of complete reductions by the second year
Property Type % properties with
Point of Interest (POI)
% confirmed as
Wastage
External Internal External Internal
Detached 1.3% 0.6% 36.3% 78%
Semi-detached 1.7% 1.1% 49.5% 78%
Terraced 1.9% 1.2% 48.7% 78%
Small Block of Flats (Dwellings) 1.3% 0.1% 22% 22%
Large Block of Flats (Dwellings) 0.3% 0.1% 22% 22%
• Average wastage reduction = 2,180l/prop/day
Option 1 to 9: Customer Side Leakage Benefit
61
• Average CSL saving = 2,520l/prop/day
• Average bulk saving based on number of dwellings in the block
• POI’s >25l/hr are targeted
Property Type % properties with a
Point of Interest
% confirmed as
CSL
External External
Detached 1.3% 41.7%
Semi-detached 1.7% 28.5%
Terraced 1.9% 29.3%
Small Block of Flats (Dwellings) 1.3% 32.5%
Large Block of Flats (Dwellings) 0.3% 32.5%
Small Block of Flats (Bulk) 8.7% 71%*
Large Block of Flats (Bulk) 8.7% 71%*
* Currently being reviewed as % confirmed as CSL for bulk ranges up to 80%
Water Efficiency
62
• 9 feasible interventions, 3 of which are combined with metering
* Actual value is 36-40l/p/day for newly metered
Options 1 to 6: Benefit
63
Option
No
Intervention Uptake
Rate
Benefit
(l/prop/d)
1 Smarter Home Visit: current measured 20% 11
2 Smarter Home Visit: unmeasured and
newly metered
20% - 23% 25*
3 Smarter Business Visit (average
across cohorts)
13% 2,500
4 Housing Association Fix 15% 15
5 Wastage Fix 5% 212
• The usage and wastage benefit depends on the number of visits and
benefit per visit
• Water Efficiency Device Life = 7 years.
* Actual value is 36-40l/p/day for newly metered
Incentives Schemes
64
• 2 feasible options
Option
NoIncentives Schemes Description
1Targetted Incentives
Schemes
Customers are incentivised through
non-financial offers to reduce their
water consumption
2
Innovative Tarriffs
(feasible post smart
metering)
Introduction of tarriffs or pricing
control to reduce customer water
consumption - only applicable smart
metering
Option 1: Targeted Incentives Schemes
65
• Trial of reward based incentive scheme underway in Reading
• Tariffs will be considered in the future when meter penetration is
>60%
• Effective tool to incentivise specific behaviours, for example
rewards during dry periods
• Will follow-on from Incentive scheme
Benefits/Assumptions
Targeted Incentive Scheme 2% of consumption of metered
properties at a 15% uptake rate
Benefits/Assumptions
Innovative Tariffs 5% of consumption of metered
properties
Option 2: Innovative tariffs
Non-potable water
66
• 24 Opportunity Areas investigated for rainwater harvesting, storm water
harvesting and greywater recycling opportunities
• 9 Opportunity Areas recommended for a combined non-potable solution
• 15 Opportunity Areas recommended to individual non-potable solutions (or
combined rainwater and stormwater)
67
District Metered Areas
Leakage (Ml/d)
Usage & Wastage (Ml/d)
Feasible Options
Costs (£)
Benefits (Ml/d)
Scenarios
Target Levels of
Demand Management
Cost
Benefi
t O
pti
mis
ati
on p
er
DM
A
Output
Mix of Investment
Options
Investment Spend per
Option
Levels of Leakage,
Usage & Wastage
EB
SD
(E
co
no
mic
s o
f B
ala
nc
ing
Su
pp
ly)
Optimised
demand
programmes
Maximum Benefit Scenario: Output
IDM
68
Average Incremental Cost (AIC) – Resource options (London)*
0 - 25 25 - 75 75 – 125 125 - 175 175 - 225 225 - 275 >275
WAFU (Ml/d)
100
200
300
400
AIC
(p
/m3
)
* WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report
69
Average Incremental Cost (AIC) – Demand Options
Next steps
70
Activity Date
Validate Data and Model June 2017
Run Model and Review
Results
July 2017
Update Screening Report July 2017
Programme Appraisal September 2017
71
General discussion
Thank you for your time and contributions today.
Dates for future meetings
• May/June 2017: Conversation with stakeholders and customers – integrated
with the Business Plan
• 10 June 2017: Steventon Drop In
• 18 July 2017: Water Resources Forum, London
73