NATIONAL SURVEY OF CII WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS€¦ · 16/09/2003 · Takeaways ̶Program...

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


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


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



Mixed use (commercial and…


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



Food and beverage service (restaurants)

Office buildings


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:


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


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


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


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


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


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

[email protected]

Lisa Krentz, WEPTC Chair and Project Manager, Hazen & Sawyer

[email protected]

Veronica Blette, WEPTC Project Manager, US EPA

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



NATIONAL SURVEY OF CII WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS€¦ · 16/09/2003 · Takeaways ̶Program...

Documents

Transcript of NATIONAL SURVEY OF CII WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS€¦ · 16/09/2003 · Takeaways ̶Program...