HomeMy WebLinkAbout0388.092-
'1
~ darrel 'Oit ___ _
September 3, 1992
THE HONORABLE cm' COU:-;C!L
Palo Alto, California
Members of the Council:
Water ConsErvation Efforts Qf Major Accounts
This report is informational only and no Council action is
required~
This cu~rent drought period has been a challenge for Palo Alto as
veIl as for all water suppliers. PalQ Alto citizens and
businesses respor:ded by meeting, and even exceedi.':1q, water
reduction targets. Major Accounts customers, comprisad of 110 of
the largest commercial and industrial companies, have played a
significant part in ~~is effort. The purpose of this staff
report is to sUDlmarize the results of these customers' 'Water
conservation efforts# the reasons behind them and the
implications fc~ future water supply planning and policy.
Water 11sage
Palo Alto's 1991 water use is distributed between tour main
customer groups: residential -49%, commercial -22t, industrial
-19\ and public facilities -10\ (Appendix 1) ~ The Major
Accounts (M.A.) group of the Resource Conservation division
serves the top 110 commercial and industridl companias and public
facilities. These M.A. c~stomers possess approximately 25% of
all non-residential water meters (3\ of all ~ater m~ters), yet
they account for 36-)7% of both CitywIde water use and total
revenues to the water utility (Appendices 2 and 3).
CMR:388:92
l
'~
i •• ter Ra4uction Targets
As the state experienced its sixth year of drought, alternative
water sour-ces were consid~red by all • ... ater s·.:.ppliers. One of
these sources is the reduction of ~4ter use through conservation
and increasej .ater efficiency. During the entire drought
period, ~n aggressive public relations campaign was launched to
educate all custo~ers on current reduction targets as well as the
various meas~res available to help meet those targets.
Additionally, in 1990, the City developed a rate structure to
provide incentives for reducing water use by charqing increased
rates for higher usage tiers, while recognizing the need to keep
water prices at a moderate level for indoor requirements. As
part of this structure, cOID~ercial;industrial ~~stomers were
!IIssigned individual baseline consumption allo'Wances (SCAs) as the
basis for meeting reduction targets. In this manner, such
customers could be assured that the cost of vater would not be
prohibitive for meeting the customerls essential requirements for
business 0F·erations.
BCAs were determined for each account by estimating indoor usage
(averaqe usage in January and February). A hardship exemption
process allowed customers to petition for an adjustment to their
BCA s if the existing BCA did not reflect typical indoor usage.
Reduction targets were to stay within 90-100\ of the BCA during
the winter lIIorlths and 200\: of the BCA during the summer-months.
sta£f estimated that annual usage would average about 150t of the
annual BCA~
RESULTS ADD FINDINGS ro DATE
M.A~ customers have achieved progressive reductions in water use
since 1987, reaching an overall 3S\: reduction in FY91/92
(Appendices 3 and 4). This translates to a redUction of almost
one million cc£t in annual usaqe compared to 1987, primarily
through dramatically reduced irriqation, sacrificed turf and
landscaping and implementation of indoor efficiency projects.
A cct is the billing unit used by the 'Water lltility. It is
equal to 748 gallons of water.
CMR,38892
-l
-i
i
j
-
Additionally, annual usage in FY91j92 avera~ed only 79% of the
annual BCA. .Tn 'Winter, usage averaged about 60"' of the BCA J
where the target was 100\ of the BCA; in summer, usage averaged
between 90-110\ of the Be" ~here th~ ta,get was 200'~ Thus r
M.A. customers stayed \lIell within reduction targets and below the
usage ~ssumed in the rate schedule. Ironically, this co~endahle
performancE' significantly contributed to the revenue shortf~lls
experienced by the water and wastewater utilities.
Some M.A. customers also have participated in the pilot 1991/92
Water Efficiency Program (w~?) to install the indoor efficiency
projects that they had not already done in the past drought years
(CMR:395:92). WEP identified a potential 99,000 eef in annual
ccf s~vings and 870,000 cet Qve~ the life~ime of the projects.
In addition to long-term water savings, WEP provided valuable
insights into customer motivations behind the implementation of
indoor water efficiency projects and, more significantly, the
reasons behind their non-implementation.. These find.ings are more
fully described in that CMR: to briefly reitermte, the primary
finaings that affect conservation efforts are:
companies are cautious about nOll-urgent expenditi.lres,
particularly under current economic conditions ..
The paybacK on water efficiency projects still is not
favorable~ when considered on the basis of water savings
alone.
wastewater discharge regulations, governing quality as well as
quantity, appear to be the driving forces behind increased
indoor water efficiency ..
Facilities managers are too busy to identify additional
projects or their feasibility ..
Lack of data on indoor water end uses and lack of expertise in
identifying potential projects hamper the completicn of
additional projects and estimation of any remaining
conservation potential.
Water costs average only 6% of the total utility bill~ so cost
savings are not a significant factor in implementing projects
(unless a company relies heavily on water for its production
processes).
CMR:3S&92 3
i:
.".<
r
I
-
."
REASONS FOR SAVINGS
Through WEP, staff determined that water constitutes an averag~
6\ of an M.A. custom~rls total utility bill. However, facilities
budgEts typically provide sO-:Je li1l2its on ho"" much could. z.e spent
on bills. EVen with d.rops in lw'ater usage, "':.1... customers, on
averag~# Are paying over 140% times 4S much as they did in
FYS7/Se for each unit of wa.ter (Appendix 5). Thus, the cost of
water have an interrelated impact on ~ater use.
M.A. customers appeal' to have lessened dramatic cost impacts by
reducir.q their water use, particularly in th~ higher rate tiers.
This is evidenced by the lower FY9l/92 .. 'ater bills compared to
FY90/91, even ~ith an average rate increase of lS\ effected in
FY91/92.
cuato.er Avarenea$
M.A. C".Jstemers, in general, wer~ well-informed about drought
conditions and reduction requirements thrQugh the mass media and
Palo Alto's public relations campaigns. The M.A. group sought to
~nhance and continue this awareness through special m~ilings,
newsletters and one-to-one technical support. Workshops and
meetings ~ere held as needed to convey large amounts of
information, particularly about new rate structures, SFWD supply
reductions and water quality changes. Some customers held water
and environmental awareness fairs for their employees to
highlight drought conditions and conservation actions that could
be employed at home as well as at work.
projects xmplemente4
Aside from projects that were identified or implemented through
WEP incentives or audits, little was known about projects that
were installed in the past drought years. Staff distributed a
survey to M.A. customers in July 1992 (Appendix 6). This survey
was intended to obtain some rough indications of conservation
actions taken.
CMR·.3&'392 4
L
'rwenty-seven companies responded to the survey I represel1ting 33
facilities sites, for a rE'sponse rate of dDout 25%.2 Thill
results of the survey are sUJUlDarized in Appendix 7~ The
percentages referenced be)o~ pertain tc survey respondents only,
although staff believes that the responses are representative of
the qeneral M.A~ customer population. FUrther evaluation, most
likely by a consultant, would be required to obtain more
stringent statistical analysis.
OUtdOor RedUctions
The number one reduction method was to decrease outdoor watering.
Almost all respondents modified outdoor watering practices (97t),
primarily through reduced watering schedules (94\ of this qroupj.
Almost half of this group reduced turf areas and/or planted
drought-tolerant landscaping. About 47\: indicate-d that these
were permanent changes, i ~e~, not just a response t., dr-ought
conditions.
A tew customars are treating contaminated ground~ater in the
Stanford Research park area for use in irrigating landscaping.
Some customers mentioned replacing ~crn irrigation equipment ~ith
either low-flow or drip fixtures as an ongoing mainten~nce
procedure~
Co.prehensive conservation Program
The M.A. group encouraged customers to employ a comprehensive
conservation program; 73% of respondents did so. Employee
education, including signs and handouts for new employees, was
t..~e mos-t. popular means. This was follo ... ed by programs foL'
increased monitoring or inspecti~., leak detection and enhanced
maintenance. About a third of this qroup used a conservation
"coorcUnator" or committee to lead efforts and/or had a w.aste
reduction program. About 63\ of this group indicated that these
were permanent programs.
The average response rate for mailed surveys ( .... ithout
providing incentives for their return) is 15-20%.
5
-.. -..... r: •.... p. i.~n_l. ~ .• _, ..•
,_~";~:'~';;".'i
-
.... -._'"
~"-..:;'.;.."."
.;~~'<" .
. :: r~.:::;:7:::.
~ :~::'"~;.:
,,~ ,. .' ::~~it~~Y,:~~
~~l~~'_.
::~~j~l; .
Domes~ic equipment modifications l the easiest to ins~311 of
indoor seasures, were performed by 70t of all respondents. This
included installation of sho~erhp-ada and faucet aerators as the
primarf means {about 60t of this group), followed by toilet
replacements or valve modifications (39\ and 30t, respectively).
Two-thirds of this group indicated that these ~ere permanent
cha::"lges.
Coo~lnglYrocess Equi~nt Modirications
Other indoor water reductions vere more time-and capital
intensive to i:!lplement. These typically involved recrcling or
reusing water from cooling or processes {58') or modifications ~o
cooling e~~ipment (~4';. The majority of thes~ respondents
indicated that t.hese 'Were permanent changes.
Only 21% ~r respondents modified their production processes,
typically by lowering water flows. This is perhaps the ~06t
difficult area in which to acnieve significant reductions.
Generalized case studies or applicability of one company's
methods to another company is difficuit due to the unique
processes each company uses and the proprietary nature of their
operations. Additionally, the do~time caused by equipment
changes greatly impacts these essenti~l operations. Furthermore,
process changes are typi~ally motivated by changes in production
methods or new technoloqies that promote production, ve~sus
water, effici~ncies. Nevertheless, the majority of these
respondents indicated that the changes they made are permanent.
Respons •• to Chanqad ~eduction Requirtments
Included in the survey ~ere questions regarding customer
responses to a critical drought situation (i.e., 40-50\ mandatory
reductions) as well as lifting of mandatory restrictions. Of
those responding to the "critical drought" question~ 79'
indicated that they would meet mandatory targets through reduced
landscape 'Watering. About 36\ 'Would use reclaimed "'ater far
lands~apinq. Less than a quarter of this group indicated that
they would make modifications to indoor ~ater end us~s.
CMR:38892 6
I
~_ I
I ,
I ,
I
'-
Nevertheless, none of the respondents indicated tha.t they .... ou1d
return to pre-drought water use practices. Ef~icient landscape
~aterinq vas the primary means to maintain consez~aticn practices
(93%i. The majority of this qroup would maintain currer-It
efficient indoor practices (70\) O~ a comprehensive program
(60\). One respondent, in particular~ exemplifi~s this long-term
conservation ~thic by stating: ~Since the drough~ of 1976, we
have had an ongoing process to' reduc~ water usage and will
co~tinue to do so even if things returned to normal.-
aconoaic I.pacts of Drought
The drought did not appear to have significant direct economic
impacts on most customers. Of those indicating any impacts (27\
of respondents), these primarily involved reduced budgets,
reduced staffing or a periodic shutdown of operations. Staff
speculates that the comp~nies involved had ~ater-intensiv~
production processes that were difficult to modify fo~ improved
wa~er efficiency. Additionally, it may be difficult to separate
chanqes in ope=ationo or staffing :evels caused by drought fro~
other no~-drought-related (i.e., economic) reasons. This could
be investiqated thro'Jgh suhseq'..Jent follo ... -up 5tud)~ 'With company
staff above the facility manager level.
Ho Co~s.rv.tion Measures Taken
Those who indicated that they did not actively pursue any 'Water
conservation measures (6t) were unable to do so b&cause they did
not have enough staff or budget o~ were already meeting reduction
tarqets as represen~ed by their BCAs.
Variation. in water Quality
Another question related to the impact of variations in the
quality of the w~ter supply. Most respondents (82%) were at
least mildly affected by variations. Of this group, 30\ were
moderately affected and 15% greatly affected. This confirms
staft observations that a fairly constant ~ater quality is
essential to all customers. Consistent water quality minimizes
equip:ment adjustments for customers with on-,,;:ite water:
purification and treatment systems (i.e.~ for cooling and
processes). Additionally, abrupt shifts to the well water supply
that resulted in concurrent agitation of pipe sediment were
especially mentioned by customers in previous complaints.
CMR38K92 7
~ ..... -... , -.-.
I
-
rMPLXCATIOKS PCR PLANKING AND POLICY
chanqinq regulatory pressures viII have the qreatest impact on
Palo Alto'a vater supply pl~nninq and policy~ Specifically,
there appear to be trends to ..... ·ard : 1) higher prices, 2) lOlder
availability, 3) investiyation of non-traditional supply sour~es,
4) reduction of waste or unreasonable \.lse, and 5) evaluation of
the priority and efficiency of ~Q~er uses.3 Additionally,
implementation of cost-effective demand-side progrdms may have
peiority over the considerati~n of supply-side resources in water
planninq and policy.4
From the results and findings fro!!!: M.A ..... ater conservation
actions, staff believes that the following factors also will have
an impact on local water planning ana policy:
The overwhelming majority ot respona~nts inaicated that
conservation measures were permanent changes~ If this holas
true, this implies that the future demand for water, at least
from M.A. customers, would be siglii£icantly lower than in 1987.
Our rights to ~ater supply under the contract wit:: the San
Francisco Water Department would be impacted by this reduced
demand. The actual magnitude of this reduction is beyond the
scope of this l"eport, but conSidering that almost one million ccf
has been saved by M.A. customers in F¥91/92 compared to FY87/S8,
a large portion of this savings could be expectQd to be long
term. if not permanent. The permanence of behavioral changes
(particularly in outdoor use) versus equipment modifications also
will need to be evaluated.
outdoors, the demand for water is not likely to rebound to 1987
levels due to reduced turf areas ana more extensive use of
drought-tolerant landscaping. New landscape stanQards (CMR
396:92) will undoubtedly mini~ize future outdoor irrigation
needs.
"Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives,
June 1992,· City of Palo Alto Utilities, Resource Planning
Division, page J •
.. il::lid, p.25.
CMR:38&.""92 B
-
,,,,',...
Ad<1itionally, grea.ter efficienci~s in ... ater-u.sinq equiI=l"lent are.
being gr~dually achieved through technological advance~. This is
evidenced, in particular. in ~ltra-lo~-tlush or -flow (ULF)
toilets, Bho~erheads and faucets, as ~ell as newer irr~gation
equipment4 As companie9 retrofit or replace older equipment with
ULF or other higher efficiency equipment., the demand. for ... ater
will continue to de·::reaee, assuminq other current uses remain the
sa.me.
BCA C4.l.c:ulations
Reduced 'Water use, in turn, has dramdtic implications for BCA
calculations and reduction targets i~posed through the drougnt
rate structure. AlreAdy, M.A. customers are using much less than
their BCA. even with some outdoor irrigation. Thus, BC.As may be
too high compared ~ith Current usaqe patterns. Are-evaluation
of the BCA policy. ca~culaticn methodology anQ the associated
drouqht rate structure is planned for this year. If BCAs are to
be lowered, this must be dona with scme sensitivity to customer
perceptions of being ~penalizedw for their previous conservation
actions.
Separate IrrigaeioD Meters
Reductions in outdoor watering have been the driving force behind
achievinq targets. The magnitude of these reductions can be
estimated, usinq the same indoor/outdoor assumptions fer BeAs,
but is still difficult to quantify. The primary reason is that
there are few ~ater meters th~t exclusively measure outdoor
irrigation. Most water meters serve both custo@er buildings and
landscaping. Separate irrigation ~eters should be considered to
more accurately meaSllr~ outdoor water demand. These ~ould also
allow measll.rf'..ment of indoor demand by existing roeters that serve
buildings. A separate SeA calc~lation and/or ~ different rate
structure potentially could be applied to irrigation meters.
Also, in prep~ration for reclaimed water use, separate irrigation
service would be required.
~ternate Water SUpply for Landscapin~
Some customers are already using reclaimed water or treated
contaminated groundwater for landscape irriqation~ A significant
nwaber of s\:rvey respondents expressed interest in using
reclaimed water for landscaping in a critical drought year.
9
-
Additionally, the Water Reclamation Master Pl~n, developed by
Brown and Caldwell, has identified a potential 12~7 acre
feet/ye<!lr (552,600 eef/year) in P,,,10 Alto that COlJld be supplied
by reclaimed water.
Thus, ou~door watering ~ith potabl~ ~ater could be ~ramatically
reduced, if not eliminated, in so~e areas by ma~inq reClaimed
water mo~e readily available to customers. This would be
especially helpful in critical drought conditions, particul~rly
since customers and property owners/manag'ers are sensitive to
losin9 their landscaping investments.
water Quality
water Quality i3 a Significant concern, particularly to M.A.
customars. This concern shOUld be addressed in any consideration
of alternate water supply sources, especially the addition or
mixing of groundwater or other lover quality sources ~ith the
prlBtine~ high quality Hetch-Hetchy supply. At the very least,
an -early warning system ft to notify customers needs to be
established so that they can expect water quality changes and
make equipment or operational adjustments as needed.
Additicmal Illfor&ation Requireaents
The recent survey and WE? have provided a significant view of
water conservation actions of the M.A. customer group. However,
we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. A ~ore comprehensive
assessment is needed to q~antify the permanence of water savings,
the technical and economic potenti~l of additional savings
(especially indoors) and the feasibility of alternate supply
sources and rate structures.
Major Accounts customers should be highly commended for their
successful water con~ervation actions and their role in Palo
Alto'S ability to meet reduction targets. They have made
significant strides in improving their wate~ efficiency for the
long-term an~. in so doing, developed a ~tron9 conservation
ethic.
customers have made dramatic headway in reducing demand for
water, primarily through dramatically reduced irrigatioll,
CMR.:388:92
--,---------
I
j
j
• i
i
i
-
sacrific~d turf and landscaping and implementation o~ indoor
efficiency projects~ They h~ve proved their abilities to
prioritize ~ater uses to the cenefit af the City as well as their
facilities. The potential for more savings exists, but is
limited by cu~tomers' time, staffing and budgets, as we learned
through the Water Efficiency Program. Ho~ever, there is still
mu~h to be learned about M.A. customer behavior and actions
reg~rdinq long-term water conservation as well as the types of
measures that could be implement.ea,
Through lessons already le~rned, the city can improve and enhance
its approaches to and interaction with M.A. cu&tome~s. Future
water planning and ~licy will need to consider these approaches
as well as M.A. customer n~eds.
Respectfully submitted,
~~,&-'6_
PETER GOVEA
Proqram Coordinator
Resource Conservation proqra~
J . /,
d:" ~j4".~~ o( YI"~~ 7-1. J
!ilK CHARD L. YOUNG
Director of Utilities
~ A$slstant City Manag9r
CMR:388;92 11
1
APPENDIX 1
1991 DllItrlllutlon "" Willlet' USII{j1I
and
Comparison of 1987 and 11191 Waler Consump!lon
(by CuslD_ Clsss)
---
, ....
c c_
......
.-
......
•
R ...... ~ _ .......... ........... '"
CUSTOMER Cl.AfI;~ "EDUC110H
..
"-liN.. ~""
ri;:V"m'l
E~~~
)
')
,-',
;,
~ "r'
•
ATTRIBUTE
MMOIIACCOI)HfS
-comm-mndu~ $$
-poI>IIt I...m>lH **
(:01<BOO111 **
TOTAL em R£VaIUE !>If_,
~Of ~'T(('fA\.'
'VI. an..L ~EA.SP' <_WI,
<OlOt! ..... f'V 81'68\
.... Sl\J.ltlCflUlIE'
toY'-)
... REoucno" [u
VSAOE ....
(from FY 8TIM)
-----
AM'f!NOIX2
C<MI~I of Weier BIOs (FY 87188-FY ~'I!/2)
of Major Acco\InIS Customers
FY $7183 PI $189 FY&9J90 PI 90191
1,61.l6 . .:l33 2,109.429 2,622,541 2,463,<;41
m,595 !,QIM46 I ;!-'Tl,'111 1:;6.1,7&1
2,319 .. (l2B 3~127.S1S 4c.ooo,<\!:.'1 4j)47,Jl)4
6 .. 16)~::t~1 7J13,46() 9'.2J1,~ 9,364,11}5
J~% 4[% 43% 43%
-3-1% &i)% 70%
--31% U% t%
--B% -5% -25%
• 'T1~ alCl,llilI;iONl~t! bM~ ~w. t~ "C'(~n~ $$" t(l~},
FY91!S2
1;l.:i1..Ml\
1,#5,00,1
3.72b)<7l
Hl.380,827
)~%
,7%
-<i%
·35%
--~------~---
Th}S inhtrmdtiun is 800 l'lW:~ i« A~jll 3. It m-p1~ ~e W m~wa-te thfl et'l11"efatkm ~n'rn deo:_.~ U6dgf> (tOO t1tf
J.e.\n:'.1sing rltti? of biU iroc:n,'¢~ ~y y-ear.
r'< <'d,' i~!'~" ,:,", ~ . .' .
'(, ":'+: .i":;~ ~ '\' ,', ,
\ ) I
)
I
1
¥ ,
~
[
1
i
t
I \.
I
>.!r/~ -."';.t~" -,.,
, ~ . .
•
, _. _____________ "_._"..-_w_~ ____ . ____ T" __ >_.~ ________ "_· ___ ~_'_
AnRIBUTE
MAJOR At;COUNT$
-comm"lflndue"'" cd
~ publIc: faddu .. ~
COMBINED CCF
ern TOTAL (all 01 .... ,
,..Of CfTV TOTAL"
"OF BCA"
,,"R~DUCnoH"
(frOm FV87!81)
TARGET REDUCTION
(V1I'IOIuntllry:
U""'lII'IdMory)
APPENDIX 3
Conservallon Parformence (FY 1r7/88 -FY 91/92)
01 MajOr Accounts Customers
FY 87188 FY88189 FY 89/90 FY9Q/91
1,843,00fI 1,6()6,768 1,707 .. ''}02 1,J62,()S9
816,602 707,42.0 8(I!!,6~J 625,82.6
2,659,610 2,314,188 2,.~16,135 1,,",7,,87
7,t49..';25 5,976;l5\l 6,00,639 "',860,915
37% 39% 41% 41%
112% l06'ru 11S.:rD 91%
.-13% ~% 25%
-V-l0% M --27% V-O%
~.
TnC'S(' calculati(1ns are ba~ on the "Col'\\bi.rwd CCf" total.
FY 91/92 CU,"lRENT
BCA
1,111<.684 1,535,200
531,954 6#,%4
1,716.638 l.UI].,144
4,637,097
37%
79%
3~%
M-16'7;"
up tn 2000/"
ntHCA
-
\
j
)
l ,.
I
\ ,
i.
I
J
.. «1 ~ ,'_
?j/'\',;.
"'-',,,-;
-'''"~'"'.' < ,
. I ~III~ I I~ ... ~. ~ .. ~ .. f~J • •• r t J
ATTRIBUTE FY 87/88
SYSTEM -WID~ Ava. -RJlre INCREAsE
M.A. Cv~Only:
AVO.. WTR. COST 0.89 (11001)
AVO.. COST I"CREASE -Cby year)
AVa. COST INCREASE
(cumulfrtlv.i ~.tld -
to 11117)
.---------
,
"
APPENDIX 5
Average Water Co".
(par eCf; FY 87/88 -FY 91192)
fOr MaJor Accounts Customers
FY 88/89 FV 89/90
56.0% H.S%
1.35 1.59
52% 15%
52% 79%
--_ .. _.-.-
FY 90191 FY91192
]0,6% 18.0%
2.04 2.17
.28% 6%
129% 144%
---------" --
\ j
)
I
!
f
,
!
i
I;
'",-,
''i
•
-
APPENDIX 6
MAJOR ACCOUNTS
WATER CONSERVATION SURVEY
Jury 1992
We would appreciate a few minutes of your tiJT1.e to complete th..is survf)' aoout the water (unserva
tion practices you have undertaken at yOU! facility{ies). Knowl.n.g thE' measures },OU h.]s~ taken (or
not taken) and why you did (or didn't do) them i5 1,'J,h..:.able to .our assessment of t.he S<::!r\."jQ>S ~ .. ;e
provide a'1d could offer in the future.
\Ve would like you to identify yoursetf on l.'11? survey .in CClse 'we need aJdi tiona] clarification.
However, your responsE'S ~.ll be kepi anonymou...:; in any reports th<:t -1.-l.<;e f:0m this project. If you
have any questions, please contact your L"lilities Resource Advisor. (listed on t."le last page}
Please check off any items that apply to your f.1cility(ies) over the current drought period. As your
time pemtits~ pro''; de further description of your actions. U S€ ad. di bon,)l shc.-.:.cs as. neN\:."\.1. Please
return tire >uroey by July 22nd .
• Didn'l actively pursue waler conservation ""',sures (continue to Section C, page 3)
o Already meeting BCA L' Dhi~'t bo, ... where 10 ,rut
o Didn't have ti."1'\E' [J Didn't have Lni"omlation on me.aS\Jl'€$
D Didn't have budget [' OtheTe
[J Didn't have enough staff
SECTION A: Indoor Reductions
• Recycling, reuse or reclamation system added
o Re>cyde cooling water
II F.-cycle prore;s wa ter
[.1 Recyd~ ~team amd~r,-qto::
o Sequential cooling
o Reuse cooling water in other areas
o Pennanent modification
Pleascdescribe: _________ _
-1-
r--: Re'..:.se process ·watt~I in other areas
:J Re\J....<;e 5 l,enIT'. condensate in other ar~d.';
C:' Reda;.rr-. tr-cat;;;od (".)Ou.rl£ \~'atLr
£J Reclaim D"ea ted was te¥.Ya ter
[] OtheTe ____ ________ . _
[] Temporilry, r€-Sponse to drought orJy
_ ...
• Proouction process mO<!ified
.0 5",,; tched to dry prvcess
o Reorganized b-:"1tch sequence
o S ....... itched from v .. ashdown to \"\-;peCOV,'l1
CJ Hlgh-pre::.sure deanJng
o Computer control
o Reduced rir$e times
o Elimlnated standby now
o Pennanent modification
o SVvitrhed from contlnuous fl.:n ... · to punded
rinse
CJ S ...... citcheu frem con anuous spray to bursls
C Chimgl'd gaIva!1.uing bath
o Cr.:mged wash fonnu.1as
[l LOV'lered flov,' settings
o Other
o Temporary, resp.:ms€ to drou.ght o;tly
PletlSedesc.7ibc: ____________ _
• Cooling/process equipment modifications (10 more efficient system)
o Replaced cooling tower
o Chang€d water treatment system
o Replaced cooling system
C Replaced boiler
o Permanen t modifica !:ion
PlMSedescribe: __________ _
---------
• Domestic equipment modifications
o Installed efficient toilets o Installed efficient showE!cheads
o Installed efficient faucets
o Permanent mochfi.cati:.:m
PIetl5e descr we:
-2-
r. Replaced process equipment
[J Ch.:mged rinse nozzles
~ Decreased.rinse orifice S~Zf'
~ Instc'1Ued contro!s (t in:as, sl1.wa/jmlTJPS, etc.)
o Other.
L.: T empar.ary, resporcSE-to drought only
[J [nstaIled faucet aerators
[J Other·
C: Temporary, res.pun:;!:' tD drought only
•
-
SECTION B: O\JtdoorlOther
• landscape watering practlees modified
o Reduced watering schedul" o Reduced turf area,
D No new plall.ting;
o Permanent modification
P/alse de&'Tik
o Planted drought-tclerantlandt,caping
LJ Ot..~eL _________ _
o Tempor.uy, response to drought cnly
• Comprehensive conservation program implemenled
o Conservation I'coorrun.ator" a5.":;~gr'.ed
o Employec= education program
o Leak detection progra:r. o Project identification audit
o Permanent modification
[J !ncr~ased mOnitoring/inSpection
fJ Enhanced maintenJ nee sc.h.edulp.
[J \,\'aste rrouctior. program o Other: ___________________ _
o 'TeJT1pc:nry. r(>Spc!1Se ~o drought only
P/alsetU5<-7ik ____________ _
Section C: Water Supply Impacts
• Variations In waler quality -indicate level 01 impact on facility ope,ations/processes
[J Gre.l tJy a...!fected
o MooC'!3tei.yaffecteG.
o }.1ildJvaHeded
o ~.J ot af{..:lipd
Plense desaibe:
------------------------------------------------
• Economic impacts directly related 10 water supply cutbacks
o Redu.::ed prod'.1.ction
o Periodic shutdo'1.'VTl of production
o ReduC€d staffing
--3-
o Reciuct>"J budgets
CJ Relocated operations
C Other
..
• Critical drought t:ondltlon sirategies (i.e., 40-50<:;1'0 reduct:on requirements)
o CDmprehensi\fe drought plan exisli with contingencies for diff€rent reducticnlen'!is
o F.educed litnds<:a}"t2 watering
o Use r~laime-d water for landscapmg
o No land.scap€ wate=-ir.g
o Installation of water-efficient routing/procl?Ss equipment
CJ !nstailahon of w3ter-efficient domestic egwFment (j,e., toileL,»
o Other:
--------------
• If mandatory reduction requirements were lifted, wou:d you:
o Maintain efficient landscape w<l.tering practkes o Maintain efficient indoor practicesfproces.'ies o Maintain comprehensive consen'ation program, induding ITlUfljtoring and mainte;1ance o Return to Hie as [twas before the droLls,ht
SECTION 0: Program Participation
• 1991il12 Pilot Water Efficiency Progra",
o Project acce.pt€d o Applied, but project not accepted
o Dldn'! h,we budget
L' D,:jrl't have time
CJ Dl.dn't krim .... ' about it
[J OUu'r:
• F~ waler audit services lor project id3nlific3tion
o Yes
[J Dldn't have time
[J Didn't k."1.0'N aoout them
[1 OL~eT:
SECTION E: Other Comments Relaled to the Drought
------
4-
•
~.I
! I
~ i ~ i
:.;.;
I ,
: , ,
: i
I
1
.'"' .
• Would you 111«1 to be leatured In a case study hlghfighllng your suee .. sslul measures?
This CO'~ld help others In their waler conservalion efforts.
[J Yes 0 No 0 l'\{e(>d more i..li"0m1.1fjon
Name __________________________________ ___
TIlle ______________ _
Company _________ , _______________________________________ ___
Add~s _________________________________________________ _
Phone Number _____________________________________________ ___
If you have questions, plea:K' call your Utilities Re&YI..!l'ce Ad..,.'isor
o Lindsay Joye
o SIeve Mangan
o Vu-ghlia Waik
{415) 329·2680
(415) 329-257\l
(415) 329-2417
P!e~ rehL"T. the sur.'€y, by l'!1ail or FAX, by July .22nd.
Thank you for y .. ,ur tj'f1l.t' and cooperation!
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILmES • ENER'QV SERVICES • P.O. BOX 10250 • PALO ALTO, CA 94303
(415) 329-2439 • FAX (415) 321-C651
--5-
-""HE :: ••
APPENDIX 7
Results of Water Conservation Survey
TOTAL , 0" JtESPC»l'SE8: 3~
Already meetin9 SCA
.olein' t have time
Did~'t hAve budget
Didn't have eno~gh _taft
Didn't know ~her. to .tart
Didn't have information on measure.
INDOOR RED~CTIONS
J..cy~liJlg, r.u •• or r.c:l ... ticD _y_t ... dded
Recycle cooling water
Recycle preeBe8 watar
Recycle steam condensate
sequential ~colinq
ReUag coclir.~ water ir. cthe~ area.
Reuae prace.. water i~ other area.
Reu.a .team ccnd~n.ate in other area.
~cl~Lm treated cooling watp.r
Reclaim tre.ted wastewater
Recla~ RO reject wat~r
Permanent change
Temporary reapenee to drousht
SYitchBd to dry process
fo;eorqanized blltch aequence
Switched from wa&hdo~ to ~ipedown
Bi9h-pr~6sure cleaning
~uter control
Reduced rinse t~8
Eliminated .t&ndby flow
Switched frem continuoue flow to ponded rinse
Switched from continuoua .pray to bur.ta
Changed galvanizing bath
Changed wash form~las
Lowerad flow 8etti~9a
P_rmanent change
Temporary response to drought
09/02/92
,
1
o
2
a
o
11
l
3
o •
o
o
2
1
l4
o
,
1
1
o
1
1
2
o
o
o
2 •
5
o
50,0.
50.0\
0.0\
100.0\
0.0\
0.0\
51.9\
15. at
15.8'
O~O,
2L1\
5.3\
C.O\
0.0\
10.5\
5.n
13~ n
0.0\
14.3\
14.3\
14 .3\
0.0\
14.3'
14.H
28.6'
0.0\
0.0\
0.0'
28.6\
5'.1'
71.4%
0.0\
'.n
3.0\
3.0\
0.0\
6.1'
0.0\
0.0'
57.6\
33.3\
9.a
9.a
0.0\
12.11.
3.0'
0.0'
0.o,
6.111.
3.0'
42.4\
0.0,
21.2,
3.0\
3.0\
3.0'
0.o,
3.0\
3.0\
6.1\
0.0\
0.0\
0.0\
6,1\
12.H
lS.2\
0.0\
......
13
Replaced cooling to~r
Ch&ng~ water treabm$nt Bystem
1«tpl.ced coollng :i:}'liIt&!!l
Replaced: boiler
R.pl.~ed pro~ei. equipme~t
Changed rin •• nozzle.
Decr ••• 4d rio •• orif~ce aize
Inat.ll~ control.
Pe~nBnt changs
temporary reaponBe to d~o~ght
In.tall.c efficient toilet~
Inatalled efficient .howa~he&da
In.talled ~ffici.nt faucet.
I~.t.lled faucet aer.ator.
Installed flu8h valve r •• trictor.
Permanent change
Ta.porary reapeR •• to dro~qht
OUTDOOR/OXHER
:r...Ad8cape ... taring practi.c •• aod i f i ~
Reduced watering Bchadyl ••
Reduced turf &rea.
No new plantinq.
Pl&nted drought-tolerant landB~aping
Pe~nDnt chknge
temporacy re.pona& to drought
Con.ervation ~coordin&tQr· assigned
Employ .. education program
Leak detection program
Project identification audit
IncreaQed monitorinQ/inapection
Enhanced maintenance Bchedula
Wa8te reduction proqr&m
Permanent change
Temporary response to drought
0910219~
.r'\
~
, Sl'P,
a
, ,
1
0
I
I
0
6
13
0
2>
• " • 13 ,
" 0
3.
30
13
1
13
" 3
,.
,
" 11
2
IS • ,
15 ,
-'---'-~;--
L ~f CltltQ'O.Kl: .L2i~...l
'l.n
33.:3' :2l.2'
2B.n 18.2\
4.8' l.O'
0.0\ O.O~
4.8\ l.Ci
4.n 3.0"
0.0\ 0.0'
28.6' lB.2\
61.9' 3'S1. '"
0.0\ 0.0\
69.7'
39.1' :2" • J.\
60.9' 42.4'
17.4' 12.1'
55.5' 39.n
J{Ln 21.2\
69.6' 48.S\
0.0' 0.0'
97 .O,
93;.a. 90.9'
40.6\ 39.4\
21.9\ 21..2l
40.6' 39.U
46.9' 45.5.
~.4' 9.1\
12.7\
37.5\. 27.3\
iO.8\ 51.5t
45.8\ .33.3,
S.3\ 6.1\
62.5" 45.5\
37.5\ n.3"
33.3\ 24 .. 2\
62.S' 45.5'
S.3\ 6.1\
~ I OF RB8PQMSB8, 33
WATER S(JPPLr IHPAC7'S
varLat10as La wat.r ~ltt'
Gr •• tly affe~ted
~od.r&t.ly .ft~cted
Mildly .fhcted
Not affected
&conaaic ~ct. directl, relatad to
water .upplI cutback5
Aedu~Pd production
PBriodie ehutdown of produ~tion
Reduced .tatfin9
R.e<tuced budget I
Relocated operations
~rehen.i~. drou9~t pl.n
Reduced !&nd.cape watering
U .. recla1m3d water for landscaping
No lan~.cape watering
Inatall efficient coolinq!proce •• equi~nt
Inetall .fficiant domestic equipment
Haintain efficient landscape waterlng
Kaintain efficient indoor pra=ticel
Kaintein comprehensive cor.8eLVatian program
Return to pre-drought behavior
09/02/92 _ ..... --'_. __ . , ..... _ ..•.
-
L._~.!... 'of Qttica • of 'fatfl
• 8
11 •
•
1 ,
2 • o
os
,
22
10 • 7 ,
'0
2'
21
1.
o
!C.8\
2<;-.6\
40."
14.8~
11.1'
33.3\
22.2'1;
44.4'
0.0'
Hl. 7\
18.6\
lS.7\
17.9'
25.0'
21 •• '
93.3'
70.0'
eo.O\
0.0\
U.U
12.1\
24.2\
.33.J1
l:i!.a
:n.:i'
J.O'
9.11
6.11
12.U
0.0'
U·.I\
9.U
66.7'
30.3'
15.:"
21.2'
U.:,a
90 .,.
84.81
E.3.n
54.S\
0.0\