HomeMy WebLinkAbout0395.092Seplember 3, 1992
1HE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Members of the Council:
Warer CPPlm"ckpt JUmJtim Programs
/
. 'il'
D-o~q
pm-.· 7
As part of the lrodgel for fiscal year 1991/92. funds were approved for two pilot
programs. the Toilet Rebate Program and the Water Efficiency Progta'1l. These
J>"OSIllIll" offered incentives to residents and businesses who installed specific indoor
water-efficie.lt equipment The programs were launcbed on October 1. 1991, and ended
on May 31, 1992. Th. purpose of th;s staff repor1 is te present the results of the
programs and the lessons learned.
This report is informational only and no CounCIl action is required.
EXEClJID'E SUMMARY
The Toilet Rebate Program (!RP) provided in=!ives to residential &nd small
commercia! u!J1ity customers 10 relrofit existing conventional, tank-type loilets to ultra
low-flush (ULF) toilets. The Water Efficiency Program (WEP) provided incentives 10 ,
larger commercial, industrial and institutional utility CUSlomers to make a variety of
water-ellicient modificatiollli using readily available Ie<:hnologies. These included
installation of non-tanlc-type ULF toilets and ultra-law-flow (UIF) faucets. oooling and
process equipment cbanges. and custom projects as defined by the customer and
approved by the City.
.'
. -. ~ .
~
rl
~
1
'I
i
··~_~·f,-~ :
./
o o
'The programs wiU achieve" :oavings of 24,060 ccf' in annual water savings and have
identified a potential annual savings of 82,255 cd. Over $73,000 has been issued or
alJocnre<l in rebat~s for water-saving project;.
The prognms were su=ssful in obtaining valuable insights into customer behavior and
motivations for water COll-<ervatiOll-Staff obtained infO!1l)l;otion. knowledge and
aperience that can apply DOt only to full-scale water programs. but to upcoming electric
pilot-scale programs as well
From !be results and lessons le.med, TRP is a strong candidate for fuU-scaIe
implementation with some modlflcations. However, staff believes that too many
<onfljcting fa<:ton exist that prevent implementation of WEP on a full-scale leve~
although <OnsWtant and informational services should continue to be offered and ro
funding of fellSlbility studies or new technology projects sbould be considered.
Nevertbeless, program offerings are potentially imp.cted by several reguLotory issue ..
including the level of water reductions required in future years. Additionally. it is
unkn.,.,., whether customer participation in TRP and WEP was primarily a response to
the dro!:sht or part of • long-term conservation ethic. Fu,.J!ermore, it is unlmown
whether !he demand for <Onservation programs would correspondingly increase with
more stringent restrictions or decrease as restrictions are liited.
BACKGRQUND
The City's 1990 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) update included a series of
demand-5ide programs designed to achieve lang-term water use efficiency improvements
in Palo Alto (CMR;129:91). Additionally. in September 1991, the City of Palo Alto
signed the State of California's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Urban
Water Conservati"n in California (CMR:S5u:91). This included an agreement to
perform "Best Management Practices' for water conservation (MOU Section C. Number
16) that included indoor water efficienC)! l1>=es. However, it was determined tl:at it
would not be prudent to embark on fuU-scaIe programs until conservation disincentives
were removed from the City's contract with its supplier. the San Francisco Water
Department (SFWD).
1 A cc:r. or one hundred cubic feet.. is the billing unit for water usage. It is equal to
748 gallons.
2
",-C;,"["-,,.,,' .. ,~~
~~Y .
Additionally, annual usage in FY91/92 averaged only 79t of the
annual &CA. In ~lnter, usage averaged about 60\ of the BCA~
where the target was 100' of the BCA~ in summe~, usage aver3ged
between 90-110\ of the BCA, where the t~rget was 200', Thus,
X.A. custom~rs stayed w~11 within reduction targets and below the
usaqe aSBUJletl in the rate schedule. Ironically, this commendable
performance significantly contributed to the revenue shortfalls
experienced by the water and wastewater utilities.
Some H~A. customers also have participated in the pilot 1991/92
water Efficiency Program (WEP) to install the indoor efficiency
projects that they had not, already done in the past drought years
(CMR:3gS:92). WEP identified a potential 99,000 cct in annual
oct savings and 870,000 ect over the lifetime of tha projects.
In addition to long-term water savings, WEP provided valuable
insiqhts into customer motivations behind the implementation of
indoor water efficiency projects and, more significantly, the
reasons behind their non-implementation. These findings are more
fully described in th~t CMRt to briefly reite4ate, the primary
tindings that atfect conservation efforts are:
companiea are cautious about non-urgent 2xpenditures,
p~rticularly under current economic conditions.
The paybac~ on water efficiency projects still is not
favorable t 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 efriciency.
Facilities managers are too busy to ideT.tify additional
projects or their feasibility.
Lack of data on indoor water end uses and lack of expertise in
identifying potential projects hamper the completion of
additional projects and estimation of any remaining
conservation potential.
Water costs average only 6\ of the total utility ~ill, so cost
savings are not a significant factor in i~plementinq projects
(unless ~ company relies heavily on wate L for its production
processes).
CMR:388<>2 3
-.
o o
a&lI8OlIB )'OR 8A naGS
Through WEP, statt determined that water constitutes an average
6' of an M~A~ customer'. total utility bill. However, facilities
budgets typically provide some limits on hov much could be spent
on billa. EVen with dr~ps in water usaqe, M.A4 customers, on
averaye t are paying over 140% times .s much as they did in
FYS7/88 for each unit Of wate~ (Appendix 5). Thus, the cost of
water have an interrelataa impact on water use.
M.A. customers appear to have lessened dramatic cost impacts by
reducing their vater use, p~rticularly in the higher rate tiers.
This is evidenced by the lc~er FY91/92 water bills compared to
FY90/9~, even with an averaqe rate incrQase ot la, effected in
FY91/92.
M4A. cystomers, in general, were well-informed about drought
conditions an~ re~uction re~~irements throuqh the mass me~ia and
Palo Alto'. public relations campaigns. The M.A. qroup sought to
enbL~ce and continue this awareness through special mailings,
newsletters and one-to-one tec.hnical support. 'Workshops and
aeetings were beld as needed to convey large amounts of
informatlon p partIcularly about new rate structures, SFWD supply
reductions and water quality Changes. Some customers held water
and environmental awareness fairs tor their employees to
highlight drou9ht conditions and conservation actions that could
be employed at home as well as at work.
Aside from projects that were identified or implemented through
WEP incentives or Budits, 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
vas intended to obtain some rough indications of conservation
actions takl!n.
4
Twenty-seven compan~es responded to the survey# ~epresenting 33
tacl1it.ies sites, for a response rate of about 25'~:Z The
r.~ts of t~Q survey are summarized in Appendix 7~ The
percentaqea referenced below pertain to survey respondents only,
although staff believes tr.at the responses are representative of
~~. ~eneral M~A. customer population. Further evaluation l most
likely by a consultant I would be requi~ed to obtain more
stringent s~atistical analysis.
OUtd'oor Reducti OIJS
The number ~ne reduction method was to decrease outdoor ~aterinq.
~moet all respondents modified outdoor watering practices (97'),
primarily through reduced watering schedules (94\ of this 9roup)~
Almost h&lf of this group reduced turt areas and/or planted
drouqht-tolerant landscaping. About 47l indicated that these
were permanent changes, i~e'l not just a response to drouqht
conditions.
A fev customers are treating contaminated groundwater in the
stanford Research Park area for use in irriqatinq landscaping.
Some customers m~ntiQned replacir~ worn irriqation equipment with
either lov-flo~ or drip fixtUres as an ongoing maintenance
procedura.
Coaprebans1ve Conservation £rogr1UJ
'The M.A. group encouraged customers to employ is comprehensive
conservation program; 13% of respondents did so~ Employee
education, includinq signs and handouts for new employees, was
t~e most popular means. This was followed by programs for
increased monitoring or inspection, leak detection and enhanced
maintenance. About a third ot this qroup used a conservation
·coord.inator-or commi t.tee to lead efforts and/or had a waste
reduction proqra=~ About 63% of this group indicated that these
were permanent programs .
.z ThE average response rate for mailed surveys (without
providing incentives for their retu~n) is 15-20l.
CMRo388:92 5
Q o
ooaastie .quip~ent modifications~ the easiest to install of
indoor ..a.urea, we~e performed by 70\ of all respondents~ This
included inatall~tion of sho~erhead& and faucet aerators as the
pri.ary aeans (abOut 60\ cf this groupJ, followed by toilet
replaceaenta or vAlve &odificationa (39' and 30\, respectively).
Tvo~thirda of this qroup indicated that theae were permanent
c::nanqes.
other indoor vater reductions were aore tiae-and capital
intensive to ~lement. These typically invol"'!ed recycling or
reusing water from cooling or processes (58') or moditic4tion~ to
cooling equip~ent (64\). The majority of these respon~ents
indicated that these were permanent chanqes.
only 21' of respondents modified their production processes,
typically by lowering water flows. This is perhaps the most
difficult area in which to achieve Significant reductions.
Generalized case studies or applicability of one company's
Jletbodlil to another CO:dlpany is difficult due to the unique
prooesses each company uses and the proprietary natu~e ot their
operations. A~diticnally, the downtime caused by ~quipment
cbanqes greatly impacts these essential operations. Furthermore,
process changes are typically motivated by changes in production
methods or new tecbno~ogie& that promote production, versus
water, efficiencies. Nevertheless, the majority of these
respondents indicated that the changes they made are permanent.
01'IIZ1I J'IlIDlIfGS
Included in the survey were questions regardin9 customer
responses to a critical drought situation Ci.e~, 40-50\ mandatory
reductionsJ as well as liftinq of mandatory re5trictions. Of
those respo~dinq to the "critical drought-question, 79\
indicated that they would meet mandatory tarqets through reduced
landscape waterin~. About 36t ~ould use reclaimed water for
landscaping4 Less than a qu~rter of this group indicated that
they wou~d make modifications to indoor water end uses~
CMR:388:92 6
•
Neverthaleas, none ot the respondenta indic6ted th~t they vould
return to pre-drought water use practices. Efficient landscape
watering ~a8 the prim~ry means to maintain conservation practices
(93')~ The .ajority of this group would mai~tain current
erricient indoor practices {70t) or a comprehensiv~ program
(604). One respondGnt, in particular, exemplifies thia long-term
conservation ethic by stating: ·Since the drought of 1976, ~e
have had an ongoinq process to reduce water usage and vill
continue to do so even it things returned to normal.-
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 budqets,
reduced staffing or a periodic shutdown of operations. st~tt
speculates that the companies involved had water-intensive
production processes that were difficult to modify for improved
~ater efficiency. Additionally, it may be difficult to separate
chanqes in operations or staffing levels caused by drouqht from
other non-drouqht-related (i.e., economic) reasons. This co~ld
be inveetigated tbrouqh subsequent follow-up study with company
staff aboVe the facility ~anager level.
Those who indicated that they did not actively pursue any water
conservation measures (6\) were unabl~ to do 80 because they did
not ~ve enough staff or bUdqet or were already meeting reduction
targets as represented by their BCAs.
Variatio~. iD water Quality
Another question r~lateQ to the impact of variations in the
quality of the water ~upply. Most respondents (82\) were at
least mildly affected by variations. Of this group, 30\ were
moderately affectEd end 15\ greatly affected. Thig confirms
staft observations that a fairly constant water quality is
essential to all customers. Consistent water quality minimizes
equipment adjustments for customers with on-site water
purification and treatment systems (i.e., for cooling and
procesaes). Additionally, abrupt shifts to the well water supply
that resulted in concurreut agitation of pipe sediment 'Were
especially mentioned by customers in previous complaints.
l.'MR3S8:92 "]
i ,"
.-
o
Chanqi"9 regulatory pressures will have the greatest impact on
Palo Alto'. water supply planninq and policy. Specifically,
tbers appear to be trends towar~ : 1) higher prices, 2) lower
availability, 3) investigation of non-traditional supply sources,
4) reduction ot vaate O~ un~e6sonable use, and 5) evaluation of
the priority and efticiency of water uses.) Additionally,
i~leaentaticn of cost-effective demand-side programs may have
priority ov~r the consideration of supply-side resources in water
planninq and policy.'
Fro. the results and findings frOB M~A. water conservation
actions, staff believes that the following factors also will bave
an impact on local water planning and policy:
LoIrer De_ad for Siater
The overwhelming majorit}" of respondents indicated that
conservation measures were permanent changes. If this bolds
true, this ~lies that the future deeand for water, at least
fro. M.A. cuatomers~ would be significantly lowe~ than in 1987.
our riqhts to water supply under the contract with the San
Francisco Water Department would be impacted by this reduced
demand~ Tbe actual ma~nitude ot this reduction is beyond the
scope o~ this report, but considering that almost one million cof
haa been saved by M.A. customers in FY91/92 compared to FYB7/88~
a large portion ot this savings could be expected to be long
tera~ 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 and more extensive use of
drought-tolerant landscapinq~ New landscape standards (CMR
396:92) will undoubtedly minimize future outdoor irri9ation
need5~
-Preliminary ,"ssesslIIent of Water Resource Alt~rnatives~
June 1992#-City of Palo Alto Utilities, Resource Planning
Division~ page J.
, ibid, p. 25.
CMR::>88:92 s
Additionally, qreater efficiencies in water-using equipment are
beinq qradually achieved through technological advances. This 19
evidenced, in particular, in ultra-low-flush or -flow (ULFl
toilets, sbowerheads and faucets, as veIl as newer irrigation
~ip .. nt. As companies retrofit or replace older equipment vit~
UL7 or othFr higher efficiency equipment, the demand for vater
will contir . ..:.e to decreas., aasuming other current uses remain t.he
saJllle.
BCA CalctUahons
Reduced water use, in turn, has dramatic implications for BCA
calculations and reduction targets imposed ~~rou9h the drought
rate structure. AlresQY, M.A. customers are using much less than
their BCA, even with s.ome outdoor irrigat.ion. Thus, seAs may be
too hiqh oompared ~ith current usaqe patterns. A ~e-evaluation
of the BCA policy, calculation methodology and the as~ociated
drought rate structure is planned tor this year. If BCAs are to
be lowered, this ~U5t be done with some sensitivity to customer
perceptionc of being "penalized-for their previous conservation
actions.
Separate Irrigation 8eters
Reduction~ in outdoor watering have been the driving force behind
achieving tarqets. The maqnitude of these reductions can be
estlmated, using the same indoor/outdoor assUlllptions for BeAs,
but is still difficult to quantify. The primary reason is that
there are tew water meters that exclusively measure outdoor
irrigation. Most wat~r meters serve both customer buildings and
landscaping. Separate irrigation meters should be considered to
more accurately measure outdoor ~ater demand. These would also
alloY measurement of indoor demand ~y existing mete~s that serve
buildinqs. A separate BCA calculation and/or a different rate
structure potentially could be applied to irriqation meters~
Also, in preparation for reclaimed vater use, separate irrigation
service would be re~ired.
Alternate Water Supply ror Landscaping
Some customers are alre~dy using reclaimed vater or treated
contaminated qroundwater for landscape irrigation. A significant
n~er of survey respor.dents expressed interest in using
reclaimed water for landscaping in a critical drought year.
9
· -
~.
<,
, ,
(
!
o
Addition_lly, the water Reclamation Maat~r Plan, developed by
Brown and Caldwell, has id~ntlfied II poten~ial 1267 acre
teet/year '5~2,600 cct/year) in Palo Alto that could be s~pplied
by reclai~d water.
ThU8, outdoor watering ~ith potable water could be dramatically
reduced, if not eliminated t in .oae areas by making reclaimed
water more ~eadily available to customers. This would be
especially helpful in critical drought conditions, particularly
since customers ar.d property owners/manaqers are sensitive to
losing their landscaping investments.
water Quali ty
Water quality is a significant concern, particularly to M.A~
custoaera. Th~.s (":oncern shQuld be addressEod in any consideratior.
of alternate water supply sources, especially the addition or
.ixinq of groundwater o~ other lower quality sources .ith the
pristine, biqh quality H9tch-Hetchy supply. At the very least,
an -early warninq system-to notify custcme~$ needs to be
established so that they can expect water quality changes and
aake equipment or operational adjustments a~ needed.
The recent survey and WEP have provided a significant viev of
water conservation actions of the M.A. customer qroup. However,
we're only seeing the tip at the iceberq. A more comprehensive
assessment is needed to quantity the permanence of water savinqs,
the technical and economic potential of additional savings
(especially indoors) and the feasihility of alternate supply
sources and rate structures.
81llDU1ll.Y
Major Accounts custo~ers should be hiqhly commended for ~eir
successful water conservation actions and their role in Palo
Alto's ability to meet reduction targets. They have made
siqnificant strides in improving their water efficiency for the
long-term and, in so dcin;, developed a strong conservaticn
ethic.
CUstome-s have made dramatic ~eadway in reducing 4emand for
water, primaril~1 through dramatically red.uced irrigation,
10
." : ~ ->--
~ -"'-.
.aacrl:ticed turf and liP ~:aping and i!l:lplm:le.nt.ation of indoor
efLiciency prt.jects. . { have proved tbeir abilities to
prioritil!e water uses :..he benefit of the City as .. ell as their
~.cilities. Tbe poter ~l ror more savings ex13ts, but is
limited by customers' t1me, staffing end budgets, a5 we learned
throuqh the water Etficie~cy Program. However, there is still
auch to be learned about M.A~ customer beh~vior and actions
regarding-long-term 'W.e·,r conservation as 'Well as the t}"p&s of
measures that could be implemented.
1~U9h leA.ona already learned, the City can improve and e~~ance
its approach •• to and interaction with M.A. customers. Future
water planninq and policy ~ill need to consider these approaches
as well as M.A. customer needs.
Respectfully submitted,
~'ek,,~
PETER GOVEA
Pro9raa Cc>o"<1inator
Resource conservation Program
11
e (-:~,
"
f ~ •• I:: I:: a 0
Ij
t z
0
c f s
" 0 II! ~ I '" ~ • .. • I c j " 0 '" u I ~ Ii ~ .. • G ... ~ ~8 !S_ ;400
DOi"'~ i z c .-
~:8·ill D.il -ij J 4:'C Ii; • ;; ... .t
6 .. -.-0 I I f I I I I I ... c ... 0 .-• ~ 00'
l
E
8
I
i
~'.
ATTRIBUTE
MAJOR ACc<)UNTS
-eotnm'lIInduetrtai $$
-public ' .. IIHI •• "
COMBINED"
TOTAL CITY REVENUE
(.ncl .... )
... OF CITY TOTAl.· .
... BILL INCREASE·
(oumuIdw;
, ... llv. to FY 'liBS)
.... ,LL INCROASE·
(b,y_)
... REDUC'TlON IN
OSAGE'"
("om FY 811")
APPENDIX 2
Comparlao. ... of Water EllIIs (FY 87188 -FY 91192)
of MaJor Ac:counb! CusIornef'.
FY87/88 FY88I89 FY89190 FY 90/91
1,606,333 2,109,429 2~22,541 2,483,541
773.595 1,018,446 1,377,m 1,563,763
Z~79,928 3.127,875 4.000.463 4))47.J04
6,163,521 7.713,460 9,231,930 9,364,J05
39% 41% 43% 43%
-31% 68% 70%
-31% 28% 1%
-·]3% ·5% ·25%
TItese calculations ate ooSt'd on the "Combined $f"" total.
FY 91/92
2,2/l1,840
--
1,445,023
3,726,871
,
10,311),827 I
I
I
36% I
57%
·8%
·35%
.,. This information is also contaln~ In ApptMdl" 3. h 18 provided hEft 10 lIIustrare ~ OOrt'l':latjon bPtwee1t df'('reaM'd usage and the
dC<''ffiI6ing fi\te of bill InctN!le8 by year.
.N).· ,~, .' l';~
f)
<' t."~"
r
.;
. ,
1 •
. "~ ,
A
1;
;~.;" ....
~.:'
'.'
ATTRIBUTE
MAJOR ACCOUNT!
_. ocr ,,,,'tIIbdu.1rl1If oc:f
_ PliblllII flldllun cd
COMBINED eCF
erN TOtAL (_II eI ..... )
,OfCJTYTOlAL·
%OFBCA6
" AEoucnoN"
(from F"I81f11I)
T AR(leT REDUCTlOH
(V .. \Iofuntary:
"-mMWPlOry)
APPENDIX 3
Conservation Pttrformance (FY 87/88 -FY 91192)
01 MaJor Ac:counlS Customers
FY 117i8l' FY 88189 FY89190 FY9OI91
1,II43,1lO8 1,6116,766 1,707.502 1.362.059
816,601 7ffI,420 . 808.633 6;!.5)!28
1.659,610 1.314,188 2,516,135 1."87,1187
7,149,525 5,976,250 6.063.{1-39 4,860,915
37% 39% .1% 41%
121% 1061
'. 115% 91%
-13% ,% 2:5%
-V-JO% Iv( ~ 2.7% V-u'1"
- --_.. --------
TheM! calculations aw based Oilihe "Combined CCP' totsl.
FY91192
1,1 .... ,684
531,954
1,716,638
~.637 /1'17
37%
79%
35%
M-:Il!%
tiP to 200'10
ofBCA
CUqREHT '
BCA
1.ll'1.200 \~!J
644,%4
2,180,244
, )
i .'<i,l;"';.'\,,\\',,:k");" .,.. ·:,·,~·~,\:,{_l;f'
"
.;
.'
~ ..
".' :..,,;..e: -",
" +~
i""\.
/ \: '(--J
/'~
• ",-
, '. . .. ':: .-.;: :-'. ,
_~,' .. ' \'''i-~>~,!;l-!i·'i!;jIil4·~'It!'
" "",
.-, .'
-,~ ..
'.
, .':}'" P{,;i!.""'~+'l
• 0" ;~"-:"" .. -"~~\"'@ .. '-... ' ,:;iJ,'MI.\\,)~~~"7 ""). ...... ,~'l+:~-.",-.,.l,~;! .~"n."..., .•. ~'·~
ATTRIBUTE FY 87/86
SYSTEM .WIDE AVO.
RATE INCREASE -
I/.A. CuoIomoro OIl",:
AVO. WTR. COST 0.89 ($I •• ~
AVO. COST INCREASE -(by yo..,
AVO, COST INCREASE
(oumuilltlw; nlilltlw -
\0 ~t8l)
APPENDIX 5
Avtnlg8 Water Coalll
(per cd; FY 87/88 -FY 111/92)
for MaJor Accounl!l CUlltOftIIQ
FY 88/89 FY 89190
56,0% 13.5%
1.35 1.59
52% 16%
52% 79%
FY 90191
10,60/.
2,04
28'111
129%
FY91192 ~
18.0%
2.17
6%
144'Yo
l,<:')
------
':;
'.' ..
'. ,",,\ '
\
...
APPENDIX 6
MAJOR ACCOUNTS
WATER CONSERVATION SURVEY
July 1992
We ,,"'Ould appreciate 3. few minutes of yow time to complete LIU.c; survey about ll-te water ronserva·
!ion pract:kEs you have ur.dertalren at your facility(ies). Knowing the mea.;ures you have taken (or
not taken) and why you did (or didn't do) them is valuable to our assessment of the services we
pro-dde and could offer ~, the fuhJ.re_
We W<'u1d lilre you to identify yourself on the survey in case we need addition<tl clarification.
However, your responses win be kept ano:1ymous in any reports that arise from this project If you
have any questions, please contact your Utilities Resource Advisor rusted on the last page).
Please check off any items that apply to your facility(ies) over the curren t drought period. As your
IiIne permits, provide further description of your actions. Use additional sheets as nerom. Please
tmnn tlu! wrvey by July 22",1.
• OIdn'l actively pursue waler conservation measures (continue to Section C, page 3)
o Already meeting 8CA o Didn't know where to start o Didn't have time o Didn't have budget
o Did.·n have infoI'Il'U'ltion or,.measures o ~~. ____________________ _
o Didn't have enough staff
SECTION A: Indoor Reductions
• RecycOng. rellse or reclamation syslem added
o Re<yde cooling water o Reuse pr(.)Q'ss water in ('ilier areas
o Recycle process ""'ater o RE~ steam condensate in other area::; o Recycll? .. tfoam conderlS3.t~ o Redam treated c.)Oling "'''atcr
o Sequential rooling o Rt'daim treated wastewa~r
o Reuse cooling water in other areas o ~er'
o Pennanent modification o Temporary, rESponse to drought ani)'
P~d~~ ____________________________________________ __
-1-
• ProdL/CtfOn process modified
o Switch«! to dry process o Reorganlud batch sequence
o S"itdled from washdown to "ipNown
o S'Nitched from continuous flow to ponded
!ins;,
o S\vitched from continuous spray to bursts
o High"pressure cleaning o Computer control
o Reduced rinse time>
o Changed galvanizb.g bath
o Changed wash formulas
o Lowered flow settings
o Eliminaled standby flow o CXh~, ____ ~ ______________ __
o Permanent modification o Temporary, response to drought only
p~~------------------------------------------------
• Coonnglprocess equipment modifications (10 more efficlent system)
o Replaced rooting tower 0 Replaced process equipment o Changed water treatment s)"tem 0 Changed rinse nozzles
o Replaced cooting SJ'lern 0 o.,=ased rinse orifice size o Replaced boiler 0 Installed rnntTOls (timers, shutoff ",/re;, tic.)
o Other,
o Permanent modification o Temporary, response 10 drought only
~~----------------------------------------------
• Domeslic equtpment mOdificaUons
o Installed efficient toilets o Installed faucet aerators
o Installed efficient showerhead. o OtheIC _______________ __
o Installed efficient faucets
o Permanent rnCJ<ilflcation o Temporary, response te drought only
Plense desaibe: ____ __
-2-
. .
. "" /_~ ; .r..< •
··~i~~:~_:.:t~;~tX;~5)~,~~t:;~.·
SECTION S, OutdoorlOlh.r
• Landscape water! ng practices modifi'
o Reduced watering sdtedules
o Reduced turf areas
o Planted drought-toleranl landscaping o Other.
o No new plantings
o Permanent modification o Temporary, response to drought only
p~~------------------------------------------
• Comprehensive conservation program Implemented
o Conse:vation "coordinato:" assigned o Incr .... d monitoring/inspection
o Employee education program o Enhanced maintenance schedule
o Leak det2Ction program o Wa!ite reduction program
o Project identification audit o Oili~: ________________ __
o Permanent modification o Temporary, response to drought only
P~d~ ____________________________________________ __
Section C: Water Supply Impacts
• Variations in water quality -indicale level of impacl on facility operalions!processes
o Greatly affected 0 Mildly affected
o Moderateiyaffected 0 Not affected
p~~~-------------------------------------------------
ill Economlc impacts direetJy related to water supply cutbacks
o Reduced production o Periodic shutdown of production
o Reduced staffing
-3-
o Reduced budget.>
C Relocated operations
DOllie"
, -.,'
t
~ , • ~ ,
o
Crlllcal drought condition strategies (I .•. , 40-50% reduction requirements)
o Comprehensive drought pla~ exists wifh a:mtingences for different reduction levels
o Roduced landsoape watering
t o Use reclaimed water for landscaping
f
t , ,
o No landscape watering
o Installation cfwater-clficient cooling/process equip,nent
o Installaticn of water-clficient domestic equipment (i.e., toilets)
, o Other.
• If mandatory reducUon r~uirements were filled, would you:
o Mainlain efficient lands.. ... pe watering practices o Mainlain efficient indoor practices/processes
o ~!aintain ::omprehensi:ve consenratioil program, induding moni toring and maintenance
o Return to life as it was before the drought
SECTION 0: Program Participation
• 1991192 Pilot Water Efficiency Program
o Project accepted o Didn' t ha ve time o Applied, but project not accepted o Didn't know about it o Didn't have budget o Other:
• Free water audit services lor projeclldenlificaUon
o Yes o Didn't know orout them o Didn't have time o Other: _________ _
SECTION E: Other Comments Related 10 the Drought
-4-
·/¥f;;l_~'-_:/}:~ -
'---'>'-• <
,;, ,"-' -~.~·i .• ;:' ,'-
• Would you like 10 be featured In .. case study highlighting your successful mea5UrH?
ThIS could help others In their wBter conserva!lon efforts.
o Yes 0 No 0 Need more infonnation
Nome __________________________________________________ __
~---------------------------------------------
compmy ___________________________________________________ __
~~------------------------------------------------
~Nwnber ______________________________________________ __
U you have questions, please call your Utili ties Resource Advisor:
o UndsayJoye
o Steve Mangan
o Virginia Wail<
(415) 329-2680
(415) 329-2570
(415) 329-2417
Please retum the ,u!vey, by mail or FAX, by July 22nd.
Thank you tor your time arid coo~atiotl!
ClTYOf'PALOALTOllTlLmES • ENERGY SERVICES • P.O. BOX ,C2SO • PALO ALTO, CA 94303
(415) 32 .. 2439 • FAX (415) 321~51
-5-
,,'
.. >x " :. '
Alr.&dy .-..tinq 8CA
;Didn' t have t~
Didn't have bu<Sqet
Didn't b.ve ~Vh etaft
Didn't know where to It&rt
Didn't have info~tioQ ~n .... ur ••
llfDOOR J:Q;UcrIONS
'-.
"./ .. -.
aeCJ'cl..int, rw" •• or rttcl ... t.ioa ':r"~ a4d.ect
RecyCle cooling water
Re~·cl. proc:w •• .,.tar
Recycle ~.am conden.at.
S~.ati.l cooling
bUN coolin'1 wat.4lll:-in other ar ....
buM prOC:I!II" water in ot.her areel
Reu ... t.~ condenlate in other area.
"claLa tr .. ~ed COOling water
a.cl.~ treated w •• tewater
Re=lat. RO reject water
P.~.n~ chan;e
fempgrary response to 4ro~~ht
'rod.~ioD proce •• .o4ified
Switched to dry proceaa
Reorganized batch .e~.nce
Swit~~.d from w •• h~own tD wipedown
High-pr •• aure eleaninQ
~t.r control
&educed rin.. t~.
.Bl£..in.ted: Itandby flow
Switched from eontinu=ul flow to ponded rin ••
SWitcHd froll! continuoua apr .. y to bura't.a
Chan~ ;.17.n111n9 bath
Changed w •• b formul ••
~red flow •• ttift9.
h:r;man.:)t c:h&ftge
T~rary r •• pon.. to drought
0'/02/92 1
"
, Rup. 'of Clt.Hon '2: '1'0~
2
1
1
o
2
o
o
"
11
3
1
o
1
o
o
2
1
14
o
,
5
o
50.0\
50.0\
0.0'
100.0'
0.0\
0.0'
51."
15.S"
15.n
C.O\
21.1\
5.3\
0.0'
C.O\
10.5\
5.3\
73.7\
0.0\
U.3\
14.3\
14.3\
0.0'
a.J\
1-4.3,
28.6\
0.0\
0.0,
0.0'
28.6\
57.1\
7l.U
0.0'
3.0\
].0\
0.0'1;
6" 1\
0.0'
0.0"
57.n
33.J\
9.1\
~.n
(I.0t
12.1\
3.0\
0.0\
0.0\
115.1\
3.0\
42.4\
O. Co\
:n.:a
J.O.
3.01
l.O'
0.0'
3.0'
3.0\
6.1\
0.0\
0.0'
C.O\
6.1\
12.1\
.'
Jtepl&eed coo1in9 tCNar
eb. pI! INt.er tr.at..nt. .y.t_
"Replc.cec!l toOliftg' .yat ...
Jteplaced ))ollar
a.plaoecS proe. •• et;uipae-nt
Cbaag.cl rin.e DOu.le.
Dee%eaaed ~1D .. or~fice .ize
Inat.aIled COftt.rol.
Perma.MDt change
!'eIRpor~ r •• poDN to drought
lft.talled afficiont toilet.
I~lle4 .fficient ahowerbeada
Ift.t.alled .tfieie:n.t faucet.
lnat.ll~ t.uoet .er.tor.
In.".:.alled fluah •• lv. r •• trLetcr.
Pe.rla&nant. c~
~ary napon •• to drought
OU2"DOOlj02'BD
Laadaca .. _urJ..q »ractice • .odJ.1.i.M;
~cecI ",atering ached.ul.a
Reduced turf ar •••
110 DeW pI ant 1.n911
PlL~t.d drcuqht-tolerant landacaping
Permanent ch&nge
T.-porary r •• pon.. to dro~9ht
CO~.rvaticn -eoor6inator-•• ai;ned
-.ploy.. education program
.fA.IJl dat.aeticn pr09ram
Project i~ntlfic£t1on .ydit
Incr •• .ed ~~it~rinq/in.paction
Knhanc~ .. 1ntenanc. achedul.
.. ut. r«liuctil:m prOljllram
Permanent change
~porary r •• PQn.. to dro~qht
O'IO~/'2
--"
uiist'
~." .
~~ ........
'<, ,";
•
, ""I!. "9f Cat!l9'O;" 'pf %O\al
21
,
• 1
o
1
1
o
E
13
o
9
1. • 13 ,
1"
o
32
30
13 ,
13
15
1
9
17
11
2
U • 8
15
2
33.3\
.2B.6\
4."
0.0\
4.8111 ...It
0.0\
2B.n
61.9\
0.0'
39.1\
60."
11.4\
56.5t
30.4'
'l.8,
40.6'
21.9'
40.n
46.n
51.4t;
3'7.5'
10.6\
45 .8'
8.3\
62~5'
31.S\
33.3\
6:.5\
B.n
U~"
21.2\
11.2'
3.0'
0.0'
3.0t;
J.O\
0.0'
18 .. 2,
19.n
0.0'
n.n
n.n
42.4\
12.1\
n.n
21.2 ..
1'.ot
,o.9\
39.4\
21.2\
)9.4\
4S.5t
51.1\
72.71
2'7.)'
51.S'
JJ.l'
6.1\
45.5'
21.n
24.2\
45.S\
6.1\
~ ,~
, k.p. I pf Cahtn;.Q I of T91:!1
!l'OfAl. , or a&.D'OIDJ&a I U
J."UU ""r.r IIfPACrS
Var.1.at.u.. , ... t.er qu,lit, " 11."
Or •• t.ly .ffected. • 14.S\ 12.1'
Moderately aUect.ed • .29 .6 .. 24.2\
MUdly affected 11 40. ,. 33.H
.at .t fected • 14.8\ 12.1'
Sc .. Ie illpAct. di~lr relat.d t.o
.. ~.r .~lr catb«ek. t 27.3\
a-duc.cl procS\Ict ion 1 ll.U 3.0'
Periodie abutdown ~f produet.J.on 3 33.3\ '.1'
Reduced st..f f1..n9 2 22.2' 6.1\
RttcluC'.cl bu4geta • 44.4\ 12.U
"loe~ted operation. 0 0.0\ 0.0\
critic&! 4rought. oaadi~ioa .t&ategies 2. . .. ,.,
c.:ap~n.i'" drought pl.n 3 10. " !Ll\
bduced l&lldacape wat.er in; " 78.U 6~. "
ON recla1aed water for laAdacapil'll9 10 35." 30.3\
110 land.c&i* watu i.ftq 5 17.n IS • .2'
In.tall .fficient eoolift9/proc ••• oquipment , 25.0\ 21.2\
In.tall .fficient ~.ti: equipment • 21.4\ 18.2\
Iffecu of lift.blg of ~W..,. re411C1:..1oa. 3. ,o.n
Kaintair" efficient l&n4acape watering 2. SI3.3' 84.n
Kaintain effic1ent. indoor practic •• 21 70.0\ 63.6\
MAintain ccmprehenai" con •• rvatiQn proqru 1. 60.0\ 540.5'
~tu~ to pre-drou9ht ~h.vior 0 0.0\ 0.0\
OJ/02/J2 3
-,-------------~-. ---,-----...".,.,