Awwas Utility Survey of CII Water Efficiency Programs

NATIONAL SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS

The National Survey of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Water Efficiency Programs project was commissioned by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Efficiency Programs & Technology Committee (WEPTC) Project Team and funded by the AWWA Technical & Educational Council.

Report prepared by Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski, consultant [email protected] January 2016

This report describes the results and key findings of a survey of water utilities with active CII (Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional) water conservation/water efficiency programs. These include the common practices, program designs, data collection and analytical methodologies employed by water utilities for CII programs. The survey was undertaken by the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee (WEPTC) and funded by the AWWA’s Technical and Educational Council. It was conducted during July 27, 2015 to September 2, 2015, using an online survey questionnaire at the SurveyMonkey® website. A total of 383 valid responses were identified including responses from 350 utilities in the United States and 33 utilities in Canada.

The survey results lend support to several conclusions and observations about the availability, design and implementation of CII water efficiency programs. These are briefly summarized below and are described in more detail in Part I (Summary of Survey Findings) of the main report. A full review of the survey results is provided in Part II of the main report.

1. Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency appear to have gained a general acceptance among water utilities as a sensible practice of water management. A majority of utilities (74 percent) have a formal conservation program and 86 percent consider conserved water as one of their water supply alternatives.

2. The availability of water conservation/water efficiency programs that are directed specifically to CII customers is limited – the actual proportion of utilities with CII programs is about 20 percent or less. The need for such programs is likely higher in light of the conservation potential in the CII sector and the need for water conservation due to restrictive water supply conditions in many locations.

3. Despite the general acceptance of water conservation and high adoption rate of conservation programs among utilities, the availability of staff and budgets to support these programs appears to be inadequate.

4. Although utilities typically target the largest water users, selecting specific categories of CII customers is also a frequently used approach for directing utility efficiency programs. The three most frequently targeted customer categories include government and municipal buildings, large landscape areas, and schools and colleges. Another three frequently targeted categories include office buildings, restaurants and hotels.

5. Information and education programs are universally used alongside the three predominant incentives that include free surveys and audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations and traditional customer rebates.

6. The complexity of some of the end uses of water in the CII sector likely affects the nature of the equipment and incentives used in the design of the CII programs. The efficiency programs tend to focus on indoor fixtures in office buildings and domestic-like uses on business premises.

ii Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 7. Approaches used to evaluate program success focus on water savings to customers and participation rates. Other frequently used criteria include customer satisfaction and awareness, and water savings to the utility.

8. Relevant data on CII facilities are obtained directly from the customers and less frequently from external data sources. Those who rely on external data most frequently used geospatial data, tax assessor records, or census data.

9. The expansion of utility water conservation and efficiency programs must overcome several obstacles to program participation including: (1) obtaining high-level buy-in within customer organizations, (2) lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers' budgets, and (3) inadequacy of the incentives being offered relative to the participant’s costs of retrofits.

10. AWWA and other organizations have an important role in helping utilities address barriers to improve their CII programs. The majority of utilities obtain information on conservation programs through professional conferences (such as AWWA or WaterSmart Innovations meetings), as well as resources from EPA WaterSense, the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) and AWWA.

The survey results can serve as a basis for developing recommendations for water utilities on how to proceed in developing or enhancing their CII efficiency programs. They can also inform the AWWA and other water organizations on the need to conduct further research and developing appropriate guidance materials to support utility efforts. The initial recommendations include:

1. Water conservation planners can use the survey information to help them design and implement utility-sponsored efficiency programs for the CII sector. The survey includes relevant information about the selection of customer categories, efficiency equipment and delivery mechanisms and incentives, as well as information on budget and staffing, application forms, and methods to promote programs to customers.

2. The adoption of CII efficiency programs by utilities could be greatly enhanced by “streamlining” or “standardizing” program design and implementation and using standardized flat incentives.

3. More research and data dissemination could be performed by the AWWA, AWE and other water organizations to develop estimates of water savings from currently available water- efficient equipment that are frequently found in CII establishments. Such information could be used to inform CII program design and build customer demand.

4. A follow-up research project should be undertaken by AWWA or other organizations to collect more information from the 81 responding utilities with CII programs who implement close to 200 individual CII efficiency programs they named in the survey.

5. Future surveys of utility CII efficiency programs should be expanded to include questions to explore the reasons for the utilities’ decisions when selecting program participants, delivery mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices and equipment.

Veronica Blette U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mary Ann Dickinson Alliance for Water Efficiency

Frank Kinder Colorado Springs Utilities

Bill McDonnell Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Kent Sovocool Southern Nevada Water Authority

Robert Wanvestraut South Florida Water Management District

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii List of Figures ...... viii List of Tables ...... ix List of Acronyms ...... xi

PART I. SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS ...... 1 A. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 B. KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS ...... 2 #1 Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency ...... 2 #2 The availability of water conservation/water efficiency programs ...... 5 #3 Availability of staff and budgets to support programs appears to be inadequate ...... 6 #4 Utilities typically target the largest water users and specific categories of CII customers ...... 7 #5 Information and education programs are the predominant type of program delivery ...... 9 #6 The complexity of CII sector likely affects the nature of the equipment and incentives ...... 10 #7 Evaluation of programs focused on water savings to customers and participation rates...... 13 #8 Relevant data on CII facilities are obtained directly from the customers ...... 14 #9 The expansion of CII programs must confront a number of barriers to program participation. .. 16 #10 AWWA and other organizations have an important role in helping utilities ……………………….. 17 C. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 18 R1 The results can assist water conservation planners in designing CII efficiency programs...... 19 R2 Results show a need for “streamlining” CII program design and implementation ...... 19 R3 More research and data needed on commercial and industrial water-using equipment...... 19 R4 A follow-up research needed to compile program-specific data on the existing CII programs. .... 20 R5 Future surveys should explore the reasons for selection of program designs and participants... 20

PART II. COMPLETE SURVEY RESULTS ...... 21 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 21 1.1 Purpose ...... 21 1.2 Survey Implementation ...... 21 1.3 Analysis of Survey Results ...... 22

Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 2. SURVEY RESPONDENTS ...... 22 2.1 Survey Responses by State and Province ...... 22 2.2 Respondent Characteristics ...... 23 3. PREVALENCE OF WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ...... 25 3.1 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation ...... 25 3.2 Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs ...... 27 3.3 Reasons for Not Having a Water Conservation or CII Program ...... 28 3.4 Water Conservation Staff ...... 28 3.5 Water Conservation Budgets...... 29 3.6 Sources of Financing Water Conservation Programs...... 30 4. PREVALENCE OF CII EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ...... 31 4.1 Geographical Prevalence of CII Efficiency Programs ...... 31 4.2 Personnel and Budget for CII Programs ...... 33 4.3 Estimated Water Savings from CII Programs ...... 35 4.4 Customer Classes Covered by CII Programs ...... 36 5. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION METHODS ...... 39 5.1 Approaches for Targeting CII Participation ...... 39 5.2 CII Program Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives ...... 39 5.3 Efficiency Equipment and Devices ...... 42 5.4 Names of CII Conservation/Efficiency Programs ...... 44 5.5 Program Assessment Criteria ...... 46 5.6 Promoting Programs to CII Customers ...... 46 5.7 Use of Submission Forms for CII Rebate/Incentive Application ...... 47 5.8 Program Coordination with Local Energy Utilities ...... 47 6. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODS ...... 48 6.1 Conservation and Water Supply Planning ...... 48 6.2 CII Program Performance Criteria ...... 48 6.3 Methods of Analysis for Estimating Savings ...... 49 6.4 Methods to Evaluate Economic Effectiveness ...... 50 6.5 Sources of Evaluation Expertize ...... 50 6.6 Reporting on CII Program Performance ...... 51 6.7 Collection of CII Facility-Specific Information ...... 51 6.8 Use of Data for Benchmarking and Program Evaluation ...... 52 6.9 Use of External Data Sources for Program Evaluation ...... 53

vi Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 7. IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES AND PROSPECTS ...... 53 7.1 Key Barriers to CII Program Participation ...... 53 7.2 Suggestions for CII Program Improvements ...... 55 7.3 Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs ...... 56 8. RESPONDENT (UTILITY) PROFILES ...... 56 8.1 Services Provided by Responding Utilities ...... 56 8.2 Utility Ownership ...... 58 8.3 Population Served ...... 59 8.4 Number of Service Connections ...... 59 8.5 Water Use in Retail Service Areas ...... 62 8.6 Water Use of Wholesale Utilities ...... 62 8.7 Utility Partnering with Water Organizations and Participation in Research ...... 64 8.8 General Comments and Contact Information ...... 65 APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL TABLES ...... 66 APPENDIX B – SURVEY INSTRUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………..83

Figure 1 Prevalence of Utility Water Conservation Programs 3 Figure 2 Prevalence of Conservation and CII Programs by System Size 4 Figure 3 Utility’s Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs 4 Figure 4 Availability of Utility CII Programs 5 Figure 5 Full-Time Equivalent Employees to Support Conservation Programs 6 Figure 6 Percent of Respondents Who Targeted Specific CII Categories 7 Figure 7 Respondents’ Rating of Success in Program Participation by CII Category 8 Figure 8 Respondents’ Use of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives 9 Figure 9 Respondents’ Rating of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives 10 Figure 10 Respondents’ Use of Efficiency Equipment by Type 11 Figure 11 Respondents’ Rating of the CII Efficiency Equipment by Type 11 Figure 12 Respondents’ Use of Specific Efficiency Devices 12 Figure 13 Respondents’ Rating of Efficiency Devices and Equipment 13 Figure 14 Criteria for Assessing Effectiveness of CII Programs 14 Figure 15 Collection of CII Facility Specific Data 15 Figure 16 Use of External Data Sources in Program Evaluation 16 Figure 17 Relative Importance of Key Barriers to CII Program Participation 17 Figure 18 Options for Improving CII Programs 17 Figure 19 Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs 17 Figure 20 Comparison of the Distribution of Responses and Existing Systems by 24 System Size Figure A1 Climatic Regions of the United States. 82

Table 1 Valid Survey Responses by State and Province 23 Table 2 Selected Utility Profile Data for Survey Respondents 24 Table 3 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs 25 Table 4 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs by State/Province 25 Table 5 Regional Differences in Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs 27 Table 6 Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation/Efficiency Programs 27 Table 7 Reasons for Not Having a Conservation Program 28 Table 8 Employees Involved with Water Conservation Program 29 Table 9 Funding Levels for Water Conservation Programs 30 Table 10 Sources of Funding for Water Conservation 31 Table 11 Utility Adoption of CII Water Efficiency Programs 31 Table 12 Incidence of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province 32 Table 13 Effect of System Size on Adoption of Water Conservation 33 Table 14 Utility Staff Working on CII Programs 34 Table 15 Percentage of Utility’s Total Conservation Budget for CII Programs 34 Table 16 Reported Water Savings from CII Programs 35 Table 17 Eligible Customer Groups for Utility CII Programs 36 Table 18 Utility’s “Targeting” (Eligibility) of Subsectors for CII Programs 37 Table 19 Utility Rating of the Level of Program Participation by CII Subsector 38 Table 20 Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts 39 Table 21 Use of CII Incentives and Delivery Mechanisms by Water Utilities 40 Table 22 Respondents’ Ranking of CII Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives 41 Table 23 Use of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment by Water Utilities 42 Table 24 Respondents’ Ranking of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment 43 Table 25 Examples of Names of Landscape Related Programs by State/Province 44 Table 26 Examples of Names of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province 45 Table 27 Criteria Used in Assessing Program’s Success 46 Table 28 Methods for Promoting Programs to CII Customers 46 Table 29 Use of Program Submission Forms 47 Table 30 Coordination of CII Programs with Energy Utilities 47 Table 31 Water Conservation as Water Supply Alternative 48 Table 32 CII Program Performance Criteria 48 Table 33 Use of Statistical Methods for Estimating Savings 49

ix Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Table 34 Evaluation of Economic Effectiveness 50 Table 35 Evaluators of Program Effectiveness 50 Table 36 Program Performance Reporting Requirements 51 Table 37 Sources of Facility-Specific Information and Data 52 Table 38 Use of Customer Data for Benchmarking and Evaluation 52 Table 39 Use of External Data Sources for Program Evaluation 53 Table 40 Key Barriers to CII Program Participation 54 Table 41 Possible Ways of Improving Utility’s CII Programs 55 Table 42 Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs 56 Table 43 Utility Services Provided and Adoption of Conservation Programs 57 Table 44 Utility Services Provided and Adoption of CII Programs by Survey 57 Respondents Table 45 Proportion of Retail and Wholesale Services 58 Table 46 Ownership Profile of Responding Utilities 58 Table 47 Retail and Wholesale Population Served 59 Table 48 Number of Retail Residential and Nonresidential Connections 60 Table 49 Percent of Total Connections in Residential Sector 60 Table 50 Persons per Residential Connections 61 Table 51 Reported Water Deliveries and Per Capita Use 62 Table 52 Questions and Responses for Wholesale-only Respondents 63 Table 53 Wholesale-Only Utilities: Population, Customers and Water Deliveries 64 Table 54 Utility Affiliations with Water Organizations 64 Table 55 Willingness to Participate in Research on CII Programs 65

Table A1 “Other” Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation Plan 67 Table A2 “Other” Sources of Funding for Water Conservation 68 Table A3 “Other” Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts 69 Table A4 Respondents Comments on “Other” CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment 70 Table A5 Names of CII Water conservation Efficiency Programs 71 Table A6 “Other” Methods for Promoting CII Water Conservation/Efficiency 75 Programs Table A7 “Other” Suggestions for Improving CII Water Efficiency Programs 76 Table A8 Reasons for Not Having a Conservation or CII Program 77 Table A9 T- Test of Population Served Between Utilities With and Without Programs 78 Table A10 T- Test of Per Capita Water Use Between Utilities With and Without 79 Programs Table A11 General Comments on CII Programs and the Survey 79

AWWA American Water Works Association

AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency

AFY Acre-feet per year

BIG Business, Industry and Government

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency

CII Commercial, Industrial and Institutional

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FTE Full-Time Equivalent employee

GPCD Gallons per capita per day

ICI Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MGD Million gallons per day

MGY Million gallons per year

MaP Maximum Performance Testing

ROI Return on Investment

WEPTC Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee

WSI WaterSmart Innovations Conference

A. INTRODUCTION This survey of water utilities was undertaken by the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee (WEPTC) and funded by the AWWA’s Technical and Educational Council. The aim of the survey was to provide the AWWA members with information about common practices, programs, data collection and analytical methodologies currently employed by utilities with active commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) programs. The major goals of the survey were: (a) to identify and describe the design and effects of the existing CII efficiency programs, (b) to assemble a compendium of existing principles and practices for planning, implementing, and evaluating CII water use and conservation potential, and (c) to assist conservation planners by providing a basis for development of best management practices, educational efforts, and conducting additional research on water use efficiency in the CII sector.

The survey was conducted during July 27, 2015 to September 2, 2015. During this 5-week time period the online survey questionnaire was made available to water utilities at the SurveyMonkey® website. After undertaking QA/QC process, a total of 383 valid responses from the utilities in the United States and Canada were identified from the 478 registered survey entries. A total of 350 responses were obtained from 40 U.S. states, the U.S. Guam and the District of Columbia. Additional 33 responses were obtained from seven Canadian Provinces. Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. respondents came from nine states (California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia). Nearly half of the respondents from Canada came from Ontario. The CII survey responses strongly over-represent the large (with population served of 10,000 to 100,000) and very large systems serving more than 100,000 persons. Therefore, the findings of this survey apply primarily to large and very large systems.

This report consists of two parts. Part I provides the main findings and observations from the survey, as well as recommendations. It also includes references to the sections of the report with more detailed information. Part II provides a complete documentation of the survey results for all 383 responses. The survey responses were pooled and summarized for each survey question and the answers are tabulated and interpreted in the text. Part II of the report is organized into eight sections that reflect the contents of the survey questionnaire:

• Section 1 covers the introductory matters including the purpose of the survey, its implementation and the initial review of survey responses. • Section 2 describes the geographical distribution of valid survey responses and provides a summary of selected general characteristics of survey respondents (i.e., utility profiles). • Section 3 covers six initial questions of the survey, which pertain to the adoption of a formal conservation program by the responding water utilities. • Section 4 covers the questions about the prevalence and general characteristics of CII water efficiency programs.

1 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association • Section 5 addresses more detailed questions about implementation of CII programs are includes information on the selection of participants and program delivery mechanism and incentives. • Section 6 covers questions about program evaluation methods. • Section 7 covers questions about the common barriers to program participation. • Section 8 presents utility profile characteristics.

The report also includes Appendix A, which contains tabulation of respondent comments and explanations used in the “other” answer options. Appendix B contains the survey instrument. B. KEY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS The survey results provide useful information to support planning, design, and implementation of efficiency programs directed to CII customers. The results sum up the experience of utility managers, conservation coordinators and analysts from utilities with 282 active conservation programs and 81 programs directed toward CII customers. The results include information about the most frequently targeted CII categories, budget and staffing, the use and rating of delivery mechanism and incentives and efficiency equipment and devices, as well as information on data collection and analytical methods currently employed by utilities with active CII programs. The respondents’ comments include a number of suggestions for improving the design and delivery of programs to CII customers and possible ways to overcome the existing barriers to customer participation. The following subsections briefly summarize and illustrate the ten key findings and observations from the survey and provide references to more detailed information in Part II of the report.

#1 - Water conservation and improvements in water-use efficiency appear to have gained a general acceptance among water utilities as a sensible practice of water management.

Within the total of 383 survey respondents, 282 (or about 74%) indicated that they have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program, and 101 respondents (about 26%) do not (Figure 1). The availability of programs varied by geographical regions and system size.

Figure 1. Prevalence of Utility Water Conservation Programs

In terms of the adoption rates by state and province, in California, nearly all responding utilities had formal conservation programs. In Texas and Washington, respectively, 95 and 89 percent of responding utilities had a formal conservation program. The rates were much lower in other states. In terms of regions, the highest adoption rates were reported in the Northwest, the Southwest and the Great Plains. The lowest adoption rates were reported by utilities in the Midwest and Northeast (see Section 2.1 in Part II).

Large and very large systems (in terms of population served) are more likely to have a conservation program than smaller systems (see Section 2.2 for additional characteristics of survey respondents). Figure 2 compares the counts of survey respondents with the number of utilities with a conservation program for three arbitrarily selected groupings of system size. The availability of conservation programs was higher than average (70 percent) in the medium and large size categories.

Figure 2. Prevalence of Conservation Programs by System Size

The main reasons for establishing the water conservation and efficiency programs were “utility stewardship and sustainability” and “regulatory compliance” (Figure 3, also Section 3.2). These results support the notion of the acceptability of the societal goal of achieving efficient water use. Furthermore, the majority of survey respondents (86 percent) also indicated their utility considers conserved water as one of water supply alternatives, which gives water conservation and water efficiency programs an important role in planning for utility’s water supply.

Figure 3. Utility’s Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs

4 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association #2 - The availability of water conservation/water efficiency programs that are directed specifically to CII customers appears to be somewhat limited.

While the majority of the utilities indicated they have a formal conservation program (which is typically directed to residential customers), less than one-third of these utilities had a subprogram or a program component directed to the CII sectors. Among the 282 respondents with a conservation program only 81 indicated they have a CII program (Figure 4, and Section 4.1). Assuming that the utilities who skipped the question do not have a CII program, this result would indicate that only 21 percent of utilities (81 out of 383) have a CII program. The most common reasons for not having a conservation/efficiency program were the utility’s CII water use not being significant or not enough staff to support a program. Because the survey responses are likely to be slightly biased toward utilities with conservation and efficiency programs, the actual proportion of utilities with CII programs is likely to be below 21 percent. The actual need for such programs could be much higher in light of the conservation potential in the CII sector and the need for water conservation due to restrictive water supply conditions in some regions. Possibly, the utility adoption of CII programs should be similar or comparable to the adoption of residential programs.

Figure 4. Availability of Utility CII Efficiency Programs

5 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association #3 - Despite of the general acceptance of water conservation and high adoption rate of conservation programs among utilities, the availability of staff and budgets to support these programs appears to be inadequate.

The majority (83 percent) of respondents with conservation programs were able to provide an estimate of the full-time equivalent employees dedicated to conservation programs. The survey results concerning the staff and budget dedicated to the conservation programs revealed that on average 1.5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff members were involved with water conservation programs. Close to one-half (46 percent) of the responding utilities have 1.0 or fewer FTEs and additional 29 percent reported between 1 and 3 FTEs (Figure 5, and Section 3.4). Among the utilities with CII programs, more than one-half (54 percent) estimated the allocation of staff time to the CII programs between 1.0 and 2.0 FTEs, and a third provided estimates of less than 1.0 FTE (Section 4.2). Less than two thirds of the utilities with conservation programs have a dedicated water conservation budget (Sections 3.5 and 4.2). Among the 246 respondents who answered the budget question 168 (or 69%) indicated they had a dedicated budget (although only 113 provided the budgeted amounts). Because 78 respondents indicated they did not have a budget and the remaining 36 did not answer the budget question, the proportion of utilities with a budget is 168 out of 282 (or 60 percent).

Figure 5. Full-Time Equivalent Employees to Support Conservation Programs

The average value of the reported 2014 budget was $1.44 million. When the reported 2014 budget amounts were divided by the reported total population served (retail and/or wholesale), about one-half of the respondents (those with available data) showed per capita budget amounts of less than $1 per person per year, and cumulative 74 percent had budgets of $3 per capita or 6 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association less. Five of the six utilities with 2014 budgets that were above $10 per capita, were medium size with budgets in the range from $1 to $5 million. With respect to the budget for the CII programs, on average, about 20 percent of total conservation budget was allocated to the utility’s CII subprograms. However, 40 percent of utilities reported CII budgets to be below 10 percent of total conservation budget.

#4 - Although utilities typically target the largest water users, selecting specific categories of CII customers is also a frequently used approach for directing utility’s CII efficiency programs.

The most common reported approach for selecting CII program participants was to target the largest water users – it was used by about 73 percent of responding utilities. The ease of program implementation was the second most common criterion used by about 44 percent of utilities (Sections 4.4 and 5.1). The survey also provided 21 pre-defined CII subsectors (or categories) to ask if the subsector was “not targeted” by the utility’s CII programs and, if the subsector was included in the program, the respondents were asked to rate the level of participation on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 5 = “excellent success”).

Figure 6. Percent of Respondents Who Targeted Specific CII Categories 7 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Three CII subsectors (or categories) were targeted most frequently by CII programs (Figure 6). These included: government and municipal buildings, large landscape areas, and schools and colleges. Also, slightly more than 80 percent of utilities included in their CII programs office buildings, restaurants and hotels. Military facilities and justice centers were least likely to be selected for CII programs. Four CII subsectors that received the highest ranking (shown on Figure 7 as percent of respondents that assigned ranks 3, 4 or 5) in terms of customer participation were (in descending order): schools and/or colleges, mixed use commercial and apartments, large landscape areas, and lodging and hospitality. CII subsectors with the lowest ranking of program participation included: retail outlets, warehouses, and auto service and car washes.

Figure 7. Respondents’ Rating of Success in Program Participation by CII Category

8 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association #5 – Information and education programs are universally used alongside the three predominant incentives that include free surveys and audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations and traditional customer rebates.

Nearly all utilities rely on water information and education programs to promote water conservation. The three most frequently used specific delivery mechanisms/incentives to help bring about the adoption of water-efficient technologies and practices were free surveys and water audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations, and traditional customers’ rebates or vouchers (Figure 8, and Section 5.2). Two other frequently used approaches included onsite technical assistance and conservation rate designs. The efficiency financing options were offered least frequently.

Figure 8. Reported Use of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives While information and education programs and free surveys and water audits were used by the largest number of respondents, a few approaches were identified as being more successful. Conservation rate designs, water budgets, and onsite technical assistance are the top three ranked incentives (shown on Figure 9 as percent of respondents that assigned ranks 3, 4 or 5 ̶ i.e., good, very good or excellent). However, it appears that most of the approaches are successful with more than 70 percent of the respondents ranking all 12 types of incentives as 3 or higher.

Figure 9. Respondents’ Rating of Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives

#6 - The complexity of some of the end uses of water in the CII sector likely affects the nature of the equipment and incentives used in the design of the CII programs.

The promotion and use of different types of equipment (six general categories of equipment) with CII programs showed the most frequent use of plumbing fixtures and irrigation efficiency products (Figure 10). These two equipment groups also received the highest ranks in terms of degree of success. Because a significant proportion of CII water is used for landscape irrigation, especially in arid and semi-arid regions, outdoor water use was frequently targeted by the CII programs. The promotion and use of irrigation efficiency products was the second most frequently used type of equipment (after indoor plumbing fixtures) and received the highest rank in terms of its degree of success (based on water savings and participation, see Figure 11, and Section 5.3 for more detailed discussion).

Figure 10. Respondents’ Use of Efficiency Equipment by Type

Figure 11. Respondent’s Rating of the of CII Efficiency Equipment by Type

The survey respondents with CII programs were also asked to report on the promotion and use of 20 specific efficiency devices offered by their utility’s CII programs (Figure 12). Four of the top five most frequently used efficiency devices included: faucet aerators, toilets, showerheads, and urinals. All four also received the highest ranking in terms of the degree of success (Figure 13). This indicates that many CII programs focus on outdoor irrigation equipment or indoor fixtures in office buildings and domestic-like uses on business premises. More specialized equipment such as counter-flow washing systems was used least frequently.

Figure 12. Respondents’ Use of Specific Efficiency Devices

Among the specific efficiency devices (i.e., 20 different devices), the top four rankings included: toilets, drip-irrigation equipment, faucet aerators, and showerheads. Seven devices were ranked as “good” or better by more than 70 percent of respondents. These included: toilets, drip irrigation equipment, faucet aerators, showerheads, urinals, irrigation controllers, and flow sensors.

Figure 13. Respondents; Rating of Efficiency Devices and Equipment

As a follow-up to the ranking of the utility’s success with delivery mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices/equipment, the respondents were asked if they focus more on customer participation or on water savings when assessing success. On average, nearly 3 out of 5 respondents reported using “both participation and savings” as their evaluation criteria. About 15 percent placed more emphasis on customer participation and about 12 percent focused more on water savings.

#7 - Approaches used to evaluate program success focus on water savings to customers and participation rates.

The two most frequently specified criteria for assessing the effectiveness of CII programs (as opposed to specific incentives or devices) were participation rates and water savings to customer (each indicated by more than 70 percent of utilities, see Figure 14 and Section 5.5). Close to two thirds of respondents also indicated customer satisfaction and awareness and water savings to utility. Cost savings were mentioned as a criterion by only one third of the responding utilities.

13 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association In order to evaluate water savings of the CII conservation and efficiency programs the majority (75 percent) of utilities use trend analysis (i.e., comparing water use before and after program implementation). The use of two other statistical methods, comparison of means and multiple regression, were reported, respectively, by 22 percent and 13 percent of the respondents (Section 6.3).

Figure 14. Criteria for Assessing Effectiveness of CII Programs

When evaluating economic effectiveness of the CII conservation and efficiency programs one half of the respondents reported using benefit-cost analysis (Section 6.4). About one fourth used the “total cost avoidance” and another one fourth reported they do not use this type of program evaluation. Evaluation of program effectiveness was reported to be conducted internally by agency staff although one third of respondents indicated that both internal and external evaluations are conducted (Section 6.5). The success (or failure) of the CII programs has to be reported primarily to the internal management of the utility (as indicated by 80 percent of the respondents) and/or to state agencies (Section 6.6).

#8 - Relevant data on CII facilities are obtained directly from the customers and less frequently from external data sources.

Utilities with CII programs collect data/information about individual CII customers through audits, on program applications, or from external data sources (Section 6.7). The data that are collected most frequently include: landscaping square footage, recent efficiency upgrades and

14 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association retrofits, property age, and building square footage (Figure 15). The specific sources of the data depended on the type of information but the most frequent two sources for most data types were facility audits followed by program application forms. External sources were used more frequently for property age, building square footage and sector sub-classification than for the remaining data types. About one third of the respondents use the collected customer-level data to develop metrics for benchmarking and/or for evaluating program success rates and about one- fifth indicated they plan to develop benchmarks (Section 6.8).

Figure 15. Collection of CII Facility Specific Data

About one-half of the respondents do not use any external data sources to obtain information about their CII customers (Figure 16, and Section 6.9). Those who rely on external data most frequently used geospatial data, tax assessor records or census data. “Other” external data included CEE (Consortium for Energy Efficiency) data, MaP (Maximum Performance) Testing information, and government business registration records.

Figure 16. Use of External Data Sources in Program Evaluation

#9 - The expansion of utility’s water conservation and efficiency programs to include CII customers must confront a number of barriers to program participation.

Implementation of CII programs can be hindered by a number of obstacles on the part of the CII customers. The survey respondents rated 14 potential barriers to program participation (Figure 17, and Section 7.1). Three top rated barriers (based on the percent of respondents with rank of 3 or higher) included: (1) difficulty in customers getting high-level buy-in within their organizations, (2) the lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers' budgets, and (3) costs of retrofits to the participant versus incentive offered. Interestingly, the potential barrier of “technology not proven/available” received the lowest score, which signifies that the key barriers are not technological but financial and economic or are related to the lack of commitment to achieving water-use efficiency. “Other” barriers to participation (those mentioned by the respondents) included the lack of direct involvement of businesses with water billing and management and limited interest in making efficiency improvements by tenants of business properties. The majority of the respondents (nearly 70 percent) indicated that their utility's CII program could be improved by refining their marketing and outreach strategies (Figure 18, and Section 7.2). The second most frequent suggestion was to change (presumably increase) the value of incentives. “Other” comments on program improvements included suggestions for streamlining of CII custom rebates for certain types of projects by developing case studies that could serve as “cookie-cutter” basis for defining flat rebates. This would alleviate the customer’s need to track water use and utility’s oversight.

Figure 17. Relative Importance of Key Barriers to CII Program Participation

Figure 18. Options for Improving CII Programs

The survey found that utilities obtain information on design and implementation of CII programs from several external sources. Conferences (such as AWWA or WSI meetings) and informal networking are two most frequently mentioned sources of information (Figure 19, and Section 7.3). Three additional sources, indicated by about two thirds of respondents were EPA WaterSense, Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) and AWWA resources.

Figure 19. Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs

C. RECOMMENDATIONS The survey responses and also the respondents’ comments provide a basis for developing suggestions for improving the design and delivery of programs to CII customers and finding ways to overcome the existing barriers to customer participation. The recommendations, which are listed below, are directed to water utilities on how to proceed in developing or enhancing their CII efficiency programs and also to the AWWA and other water organizations on conducting further research and developing appropriate guidance materials to support utility efforts.

The information and data contained in this report can be used by water conservation planners who need to design and implement one or more utility-sponsored efficiency programs for CII customers or reformulate the existing programs. The process could start by selecting the categories of CII customers from those that were ranked highest in terms of program participation. For each selected category of customers the appropriate efficiency equipment and delivery mechanisms and incentives could be then selected by reviewing the experience of the respondents with respect to the success in achieving program participation and water savings. The report can also be used as a guide when deciding on the more ordinary program elements such as budget and staffing, application forms, and methods to promote programs to CII customers including the selection of program names that would appeal to potential participants (by consulting the listing of nearly 200 program names provided by the survey respondents). However, some elements of program design were not included in the survey (such as the size of the monetary incentives or rebates) but could be obtained directly from the web sites of the responding utilities. R2 – Results show an immediate need for “streamlining” or “standardizing” CII program design and implementation.

The adoption of CII efficiency programs by utilities could be furthered by “streamlining” or “standardizing” program design and implementation. The AWWA, and especially its 42 local sections across Canada and the U.S., can collect and compile detailed information on the existing CII programs among the AWWA member utilities in each region and use it to create standard program designs with standard incentives that are appropriate for their regions. As one respondent from Florida suggested: “If Florida Chapter of AWWA can make a member- accessible, segregated list and abstracts/reports of CII programs implemented by other utilities, it would make new program planning easier and justifiable to upper management and decision- makers. Include contact information.” Another respondent from Washington State made a similar suggestion by stating that the barrier to participation can be overcome by developing “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.” R3 – More research and data dissemination should be done on commercial and industrial water- using equipment.

More research and data dissemination could be performed by the AWWA, AWE and other water organizations to develop estimates of water savings from water-using apparatus that are frequently found in CII establishments. Currently, only pre-rinse spray valves for kitchens seem to be well-researched and are frequently used. The respondents’ comments suggest that technical data on some water-using equipment are not readily available. For example, one

19 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association respondent from Texas mentioned that they try all the sources listed on the survey Question 32 (including AWWA manuals, journal, website, AWWA and WSI conferences; Alliance for Water Efficiency, EPA WaterSense resources), but few of those are up to date and because the technology changes quickly, they have to resort to getting up-to-date specification sheets from vendors to assess options. It appears that this type of information is critical for designing effective CII programs and could be used to help build customer demand. R4 – A follow-up research project is needed to compile program-specific data on the existing CII efficiency programs.

A more immediate follow-up research project could be undertaken by the AWWA Water Efficiency and Programs Committee (WEPTC) based on the information provided in the survey. A total of 131 respondents stated that they would be willing to participate in follow-up research on CII water efficiency programs and 114 of these respondents also provided complete contact information. Forty-two of these respondents have a total of 136 different CII programs. The number of CII programs that could be included in the follow-up research would be even greater since only 10 respondents out of 81 with CII programs opted out. The follow-up contacts could collect additional information about each individual CII program including the level of incentives, number of participants, customer costs, and water savings, as well as other available data. R5 – Future surveys of utility CII Efficiency programs should explore the reasons for selection of program participants, delivery mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices and equipment.

While this survey addressed the rationale behind some decisions of the utilities regarding the design and implementation of CII programs, the summary results for questions that pertain to selection of program participants, delivery mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices and equipment indicate the need for additional exploration of reasons behind the utilities’ decisions. Future surveys of utility CII Efficiency programs should be expanded to include the questions to explore the factors that address the motivation or rationalization of the various elements of program design.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose

The main intent of this project was to capture the varying knowledge within the AWWA membership about active water conservation/water efficiency initiatives in the commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) sector of water customers. In contrast to the residential sector, the CII customers and their water use tend to be highly varied and water utilities cannot easily benchmark the CII water use to support planning and implementation of water conservation or efficiency improvement programs within this sector. Readily available information about the existing and potential efficiencies of a large array of water-using apparatus, technologies and practices of CII customers is limited and contributes to difficulties in the design and delivery of utility-sponsored CII programs and, in some cases, may deter water utilities from undertaking such programs.

This survey of water utilities was undertaken by the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee (WEPTC) and funded by the AWWA’s Technical and Educational Council. The aim of the survey was to provide the AWWA members with information about common practices, programs, data collection and analytical methodologies currently employed by utilities with active CII programs. Three major objectives of the survey were: (a) to identify and describe the design and effects of the existing CII efficiency programs, (b) to assemble a compendium of existing principles and practices for planning, implementing, and evaluating CII water use and conservation potential, and (c) to assist conservation planners by providing a basis for development of best management practices, educational efforts, and conducting additional research on water use efficiency in the CII sector. 1.2 Survey Implementation

The survey was conducted during July 27, 2015 to September 2, 2015. During this 5-week time period the online survey questionnaire was made available to water utilities at the SurveyMonkey® website. The utilities were notified about the survey by the email broadcast from AWWA Engineering and Technical Services and additional rebroadcasts by other water organizations (i.e., Alliance for Water Efficiency [AWE], Colorado WaterWise, regional association of water agencies, and others). A reminder email was sent by AWWA on August 25, 2015 and the survey was effectively closed on September 2, 2015.

The SurveyMonkey® registered a total of 478 survey entries. However, a significant number of responses were not valid, or could not be included in the analysis. There were 6 blank responses and 111 cases with 2 or more identical IP addresses, suggesting multiple responses from the same water utility. The availability of IP addresses from SurveyMonkey® permitted a reverse IP address lookup to identify the location for responses without postal address (through an online

21 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association site: http://ipaddress.com/reverse-ip/) to identify the state, province or the country of origin of the survey. A total of 17 responses originated from countries other than United States or Canada.

1.3 Analysis of Survey Results

The survey results were analyzed and subjected to a through QA/QC process to ensure inclusion of reliable data. Multiple (repeated) responses from the same water utility were excluded from the analysis by selecting only one response per utility with the most complete answers. Also excluded from the analysis were responses from countries other than U.S. and Canada. The excluded responses were archived in the data set for independent analysis by AWWA staff. This initial screening produced a total of 383 valid responses from the utilities in the United States and Canada.

All valid responses were further reviewed for correctness. The answers that were clearly incorrect (mostly caused by the respondent’s misunderstanding of the question) and could not be easily corrected were excluded. Some respondent entries were edited to conform to the consistent format or the units of measurement. For each survey question, the answers were tabulated and where appropriate were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Answers to the key questions of the survey were also cross-tabulated with selected characteristics of the responding utilities.

The terminology used throughout the report should conform to the terms that are generally used in survey research. The terms “survey respondents” and “utilities” or “responding utilities” are used interchangeably because each completed survey represents a utility. The term “survey responses” or “responses” pertains to the answers to survey questions. Because some questions allowed multiple answers, the number of responses (i.e., response count) can exceed the number of respondents. The result is that while the percent of responses sums up to 100 percent, percent of respondents for the same question could sum up to more than 100 percent. For questions where only one answer is allowed (or possible) the number of responses is the same as the number of respondents or utilities.

2. SURVEY RESPONDENTS 2.1 Survey Responses by State and Province The initial screening of the data produced a total of 383 valid responses from the utilities in the United States and Canada (Table 1). A total of 350 responses were obtained from 40 U.S. states, the U.S. Guam and the District of Columbia. An additional 33 responses were obtained from seven Canadian Provinces. Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. respondents came from nine states (California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia). Nearly half of the respondents from Canada came from Ontario.

Table 1. Valid Survey Responses by State and Province

Region State/Province Responses Region State/Province Responses SW California 63 NE Pennsylvania 4 SE Florida 28 MW Missouri 3 GP Texas 20 SW New Mexico 3 NW Washington 19 SW Utah 3 MW Illinois 18 GP Nebraska 3 SW Colorado 18 SE Louisiana 2 SW Arizona 14 NE Maryland 2 SE Georgia 12 GP North Dakota 2 SE Virginia 11 SE Alabama 1 NW Oregon 8 SE Arkansas 1 NE Connecticut 7 NE District of Columbia 1 SE North Carolina 7 USA Guam 1 NE Massachusetts 6 USA Hawaii 1 MW Minnesota 6 SE South Carolina 1 NE New York 6 GP South Dakota 1 GP Kansas 6 USA Other States (U.S.) 22 MW Ohio 6 Total United States 350 MW Indiana 5 NE Rhode Island 5 CAN Ontario 16 SW Tennessee 5 CAN Alberta 6 MW Wisconsin 5 CAN British Columbia 6 NE New Jersey 4 CAN Saskatchewan 2 MW Iowa 4 CAN Manitoba 1 SE Kentucky 4 CAN New Brunswick 1 MW Michigan 4 CAN Nova Scotia 1 SW Nevada 4 Total Canada 33 GP Oklahoma 4 All Valid Responses 383 Response counts by region: Southwest (SW) – 105; Southeast (SE) – 72; Midwest (MW) – 51; Great Plains (GP) – 36; Northeast (NE) – 35; Northwest (NW) – 27; Unknown regions (USA) – 24; Canada (CAN) – 33.

The response counts from U.S. states and Canadian provinces were also summarized by 6 climatic regions of the Continental U.S. (following the regional designations used in the Third National Climate Assessment Report (www.globalchange.gov). The highest number of responses were obtained for the Southwest and the Southeast (see the bottom panel of Table 1). 2.2 Respondent Characteristics A section of the survey was designed to obtain information on key utility characteristics. Table 2 shows nine selected utility characteristics that describe the profiles of the responding utilities. More detailed presentation of utility profiles is included in Section 8 of this report.

No. of Standard Respondent (Utility) Characteristic Mean Median Range Responses Deviation Population served in retail areas 200 221,500 60,000 651,900 108 ̶ 8,400,000 Population served in wholesale areas 103 370,200 19,000 1,804,000 0 ̶ 18,000,000 Residential (retail) service connections 176 43,300 15,000 67,700 0 – 398,000 Nonresidential service connections 163 6,000 1,600 2,600 0 – 78,000 Total retail connection 179 52,100 19,000 80,100 0 – 473,800 Residential water deliveries (MGD) 109 19.67 4.40 64.96 0.01 – 654.0 Nonresidential deliveries (MGD) 94 10.40 2.51 22.54 0.001– 181.0 Total water deliveries (MGD) 118 29.56 6.85 82.87 0.01 – 835.0 Calculated per capita water use (GPCD) 115 120.2 102.7 56.4 43.3 – 318.0

The statistics in Table 2 show a broad range of utilities represented by survey respondents in terms of population served, number of customers and water use. However, in terms of representation of the water utilities across the U.S., the sample of 350 utilities is more representative of large water supply systems (Figure 20).

The histograms on Figure 20 compare the distribution of survey responses from the U.S. utilities (by system size based on population served) with the 2011 EPA inventory of community water systems in the U.S., and with the proportional sampling used in the 2006 EPA survey. In 2011, there were 51,356 community water systems in the U.S. and 55 percent of these were very small serving less than 500 persons. Only 0.8 percent of systems served more than 100,000 persons. The respondents to the CII survey clearly under-represent the very small and small systems and slightly over-represent the medium size systems (3,301 to 10,000) and strongly over-represent the large (10,000 to 100,000) and very large systems serving more than 100,000 persons. This could be expected because both the availability and the need for CII programs in very small systems is likely to be very low. Therefore, the findings of this survey apply primarily to large and very large systems.

CII Survey EPA Sample 2006 EPA Inventory 2011 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

Relative Frequency 10% 0% Less than 500 501 - 3300 3,301 - 10,000 10,001 - Greater than 100,000 100,000

Figure 20. Comparison of the Distribution of Responses and Existing Systems by System Size 24 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 3. PREVALENCE OF WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 3.1 Utility Adoption of Water Conservation

The respondents were asked if their utility has a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program (or programs) (Question 1). The results in Table 3 show that among the 383 respondents 282 (or about 74%) indicated that they have a water conservation/water efficiency program, and 101 respondents (about 26%) do not. The latter group includes 20 respondents (5 percent of the total) who are developing a conservation program.

Table 3. Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs

Response Percent of Response Options Count Utilities Yes 282 73.6% No 74 19.3% In development but not implemented 20 5.2% No in-house program – programs are offered by our wholesale utility 4 1.0% Previously existing program has been discontinued 3 0.8% Totals 383 100.0% Survey question Q1-- Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program (or programs)?

The adoption rates among the responding utilities by state and province are shown in Table 4. In California, nearly all responding utilities had formal conservation programs – only one utility reported no in-house program but was covered by a program of its wholesale district. In Texas and Washington, respectively, 95 and 89 percent of responding utilities had a formal conservation program.

Table 4. Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs by State/Province

With Without Percent with Response State/Province Conservation Conservation Conservation Count Program Program Program California 63 62 1 98% Florida 28 23 5 82% Texas 20 19 1 95% Washington 19 17 2 89% Colorado 18 13 5 72% Illinois 18 9 9 50% Arizona 14 10 4 71% Georgia 12 10 2 83% Virginia 11 6 5 55% Oregon 8 8 0 100% Connecticut 7 3 4 43% North Carolina 7 5 2 71% Kansas 6 3 3 50% Massachusetts 6 2 4 33% Minnesota 6 4 2 67% New York 6 4 2 67%

25 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association With Without Percent with Response State/Province Conservation Conservation Conservation Count Program Program Program Ohio 6 2 4 33% Indiana 5 2 3 40% Rhode Island 5 4 1 80% Tennessee 5 2 3 40% Wisconsin 5 1 4 20% Iowa 4 3 1 75% Kentucky 4 2 2 50% Michigan 4 4 0% New Jersey 4 4 0 100% Nevada 4 4 0 100% Oklahoma 4 4 0 100% Pennsylvania 4 4 0% Missouri 3 2 1 67% Nebraska 3 1 2 33% New Mexico 3 3 0 100% Utah 3 3 0 100% Louisiana 2 2 0% Maryland 2 1 1 50% North Dakota 2 2 0 100% Alabama 1 1 0 100% Arkansas 1 1 0 100% District of 1 1 0% Columbia Guam 1 1 0% Hawaii 1 1 0 100% South Carolina 1 1 0% South Dakota 1 1 0 100% Other States (U.S.) 22 16 6 73% Subtotal U.S. 350 258 92 74%

Ontario 16 13 3 81% Alberta 6 3 3 50% British Columbia 6 6 0 100% Saskatchewan 2 2 0% Manitoba 1 1 0 100% New Brunswick 1 1 0 100% Nova Scotia 1 1 0% Subtotal 33 24 9 73% Canada

Grand Total 383 282 101 74% Survey question Q1-- Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program (or programs)?

From a regional perspective, the highest adoption rates were reported in the Northwest (Washington, Oregon and Idaho) and the Southwest (California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico) followed by the Great Plains (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota). The lowest adoption rates were reported by utilities in the Midwest and Northeast (Table 5). While the prevalence of conservation programs in the Southwestern U.S. can be explained by the limited availability of water due to the arid and semi-arid climate, the

Table 5. Regional Differences in Utility Adoption of Water Conservation Programs

In Wholesaler Percent Have No Dis- Region N Develop- Program with Program Program continued ment Only Program Northwest 27 25 2 93% Southwest 105 95 6 2 2 90% Great Plains 36 30 5 1 83% Southeast 72 50 17 3 1 1 69% Northeast 35 18 11 5 1 51% Midwest 51 23 24 4 45% Other U.S. 24 17 4 3 71% Canada 33 24 5 3 1 73% All regions 383 282 74 20 4 3 74% Survey question: Q1-- Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program (or programs)? N = number of utilities

3.2 Reasons for Establishing Conservation Programs

Respondents with conservation/efficiency programs were asked to identify reasons for establishing their programs. Table 6 shows the distribution of responses among seven predefined reasons in the survey question. Not surprisingly, the most frequently selected reason was “utility stewardship and sustainability.” It was selected by more than half of the utilities. About 40 percent of utilities indicated “regulatory compliance” as one of the reasons. The proportion of these two answers was significantly higher among the utilities in the Southwest than in other regions.

Somewhat surprising is the relatively low frequency of the reasons for conservation related to infrastructure investments and availability of water in supply sources. Respectively, only about 20 and 18 percent of utilities selected such reasons. The reasons selected least frequently were related to capacity of water and wastewater treatment plants.

Table 6. Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation/Efficiency Programs Response Percent of Percent of Response Option Count Responses Utilities Utility stewardship and sustainability 203 29.8% 53.0% Regulatory compliance 150 22.0% 39.2% Reduction of O&M costs and/or energy costs 78 11.5% 20.4% Deferral/avoidance of infrastructure investments 77 11.3% 20.1% Exceeding safe yield of water supply source(s) 68 10.0% 17.8% Demand approaching capacity of water treatment plant(s) 46 6.8% 12.0% Approaching capacity of wastewater treatment plant(s) 22 3.2% 5.7% Other reasons (please specify): 37 5.4% 9.7% Total Responses 681 100.0% 100.0% Survey Question Q2 -- What are the primary reasons for establishing water conservation or water use efficiency program(s) at your utility? (Select all that apply).

About 10 percent of respondents (37 utilities) also indicated other reasons. These are included in Table A1 of Appendix A at the end of this report. While the “other” reasons varied across utilities and states, many were related to water conservation as part of water management during drought. 3.3 Reasons for Not Having a Water Conservation or CII Program

Respondents without an active conservation program were directed (through a skip option in the questionnaire) to a question about reasons for not establishing any water conservation or CII efficiency programs. Table 7 shows that the most common answer was that the utility’s CII water use is not significant.

Table 7. Reasons for Not Having a Conservation Program

Response Percent of Response Option Count Responses CII use is not significant enough to warrant a program 71 33.3% Not enough staff 44 20.7% Need information about how to establish and maintain a program 35 16.4% Not enough funding 22 10.3% Other (please indicate): 41 19.2% Total 213 100.0% Survey question Q33 -- What are the primary reasons for not having (or discontinuing) a water conservation and/or CII program?

The “other” reasons for not having a program are listed in Table A8 in the appendix. Three recurring types of “other” reasons were: (1) wholesale utility that supports programs done by retailers, (2) lack of need for water conservation, and (3) availability of conservation incentives without having a formal program with dedicated staff. 3.4 Water Conservation Staff

A total of 235 out of 282 respondents with conservation programs provided information on the number of employees that currently work on their water efficiency/water conservation programs. The respondents were asked to provide estimates of full-time equivalents (FTE) and were instructed that 1 FTE = 2,080 hours/year, and 1.5 FTE = 3,120 hours/year.

The results in Table 8 show that close to one-half (45.5 percent) of the responding utilities reported having between 0 and 1 FTEs involved with water conservation programs and additional 28.5 percent reported between 1 and 3 FTEs. The median response value was 1.5 FTEs. There is no statistically significant relationship between the number of employees who work on conservation programs and total population served by a water utility.

Table 8. Employees Involved with Water Conservation Program

Full-Time Equivalent Response Percent Employees Frequency <1 107 45.5% 1 - 2 42 17.9% 2 - 3 25 10.6% 3 - 4 18 7.7% 4 - 5 9 3.8% 5 - 6 2 0.9% 6 - 7 3 1.3% 7 - 8 1 0.4% 8 - 9 3 1.3% 9 - 10 8 3.4% >10 17 7.2% Total 235 100.0% Survey Question Q3 -- Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on your water efficiency/water conservation programs

3.5 Water Conservation Budgets

The 282 respondents with conservation program were asked if their utility had a dedicated budget for water conservation and efficiency programs. A total of 246 respondents answered the question and 168 respondents (69%) indicated they had a dedicated budget but only 113 provided the budgeted amounts. Another 78 respondents indicated they did not have a budget and the remaining 36 did not answer the budget question. These response counts suggest that only about 60 percent of utilities with a conservation program have a dedicated budget for the program.

The annual budgets in the 113 reporting utilities summed up to $162,100,000 (or, on average, $1.44 million per utility). Table 9 shows the distribution of the reported levels of annual funding for 2014. Approximately one third (33.6 percent) of the reported budget amounts were below $100,000 per year and about one fourth (26.5 percent) were above $1,000,000. The median value of the 2014 budget was $307,000.

Understandably, the budget levels depended on the size of service area. The highest annual budget of $32 million was reported by a utility serving about 4 million residents. The bottom panel of Table 9 shows the 2014 budget amounts obtained by dividing annual conservation budget by the reported total population served (retail and/or wholesale). Close to one-half of the 82 respondents with available data had per capita budget amounts of less than $1 per person per year, and 74 percent of utilities had budgets of $3 per capita per year or less. Five of the six utilities with 2014 budgets that were above $10 per capita, were medium size with budgets in the range from $1 to $5 million.

Table 9. Funding Levels for Water Conservation Programs

Water Conservation Budget 2014 Frequency Percent Annual Total, $ <100,000 38 33.6% 100,000-250,000 16 14.2% 250,000-500,000 18 15.9% 500,000-1,000,000 11 9.7% 1,000,000-2,500,000 18 15.9% 2,500,000-5,000,000 6 5.3% >5,000,000 6 5.3% All respondents 113 100.0% Budget Per Capita, $ <$1 37 45.1% $1-2 12 14.6% $2-3 12 14.6% $3-5 8 9.8% $5-10 7 8.6% $10-20 4 4.9% >$20 2 2.4% All respondents 82 100.0% Survey Question Q5: Approximately how much was budgeted and spent by your utility in 2014 on water conservation and efficiency programs?

The actual amount of funds spent in 2014 was under the 2014 budget in 93 utilities (on average lower by 20 percent) and over the budget in 11 (about 31 percent higher, on average). The total amount spend by all respondents in 2014 was 12 percent below the budget.

The respondents were also asked to provide the budgeted amount for 2015. The sum of the 2015 budgets among 111 responding utilities has increased from $162.5 million in 2014 to $281.1 million in 2015. However, the total increase was caused primarily by large increases in the conservation budgets in some utilities in California due to the on-going drought. One of the wholesale utilities in California has increased the 2015 budget to $100 million (from $20 million in 2014) and planned a budget of $450 million in 2016. In per capita terms, the 2015 budget in this utility of about $5 per person would be increased in 2016 to about $25 per person.

Among the 111 utilities, 60 utilities reported decreased 2015 budgets (on average by about 10 percent relative to the 2014 budget) and 51 utilities reported the 2015 budgets that were on average higher than 2014 budget (on average by 58 percent).

3.6 Sources of Financing Water Conservation Programs The respondents were asked about the source of funds for the conservation and efficiency programs. Table 10 shows the distribution of answers to eight predefined financing options. The use of operating budget funds was selected most frequently – by about 81 percent of utilities (169 out of 210 who responded to Question 6). The use of grants and capital improvement funds

30 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association were reported, respectively, by 26.2 and 19.0 percent of utilities. Utilities without dedicated budgets were more likely to use operating budgets and capital improvement funds. Those with dedicated budgets were more likely to use grants and dedicated funding from water rates.

While 114 respondents selected only one source of funds (with majority of those selecting operating budget funds), 90 respondents selected two or more funding sources. The compilation of the “other” sources of funding is included in Table A2 in the appendix.

Table 10. Sources of Funding for Water Conservation

No. of Responses Percent of Total Response Options With Without All Responses Utilities Budget Budget Operating budget funds 112 56 169 46.70% 80.50% Grants or other outside funding sources 43 12 55 15.20% 26.20% Capital improvement funds 25 14 40 11.00% 19.00% Dedicated funding from volumetric rates 25 2 27 7.50% 12.90% Connection charges 12 6 18 5.00% 8.60% Development or impact fees 10 5 16 4.40% 7.60% Taxes, special fees 11 2 13 3.60% 6.20% Other (please identify) 16 8 24 6.6% 11.4% Total 254 105 362 100.0% 172.4% Survey Question Q6. How does your utility finance your conservation and efficiency programs?

4. PREVALENCE OF CII EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 4.1 Geographical Prevalence of CII Efficiency Programs

Respondents were asked if their existing water conservation and efficiency program include subprograms or components directed to the CII subsector. A total of 204 respondents out of 282 with conservation program answered this question (Table 11). The availability of a CII program was indicated by 81 responding utilities with additional 21 indicating that a CII program is currently being developed.

Table 11. Utility Adoption of CII Water Efficiency Programs

Response Percent of Response Options Count Utilities Yes 81 39.7% Currently in development 21 10.3% No longer active 4 2.0% No 98 48.0% Total responses 204 100.0% Survey question Q7: Does your conservation and efficiency program include subprograms or components directed to the CII subsector?

31 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association The incidence of conservation and efficiency programs for the CII subsector by state/province is summarized in Table 12. It shows the answers to Question 7 and compares them with adoption of overall conservation programs (as previously reported in Table 4). Only states or provinces with respondents’ answers about a CII program are included on Table 12.

The 81 utilities with a CII subprogram represent approximately 29 percent of the 282 utilities with an overall conservation program, and about 21 percent of all utilities who responded to the survey. The states of California, Washington and Oregon have the highest rates of adoption of CII programs (as percent of total respondents). In terms of regions, Northwest and Southwest have the highest incidence of CII programs. Respondents from 16 states (plus 3 responses with unidentified states) and one Canadian Province indicated they have a CII program. In California, 27 respondents (out of the total of 63) have a CII program and 2 respondents are developing a program. It should be noted that 20 respondents from California did not answer the question. Across the 31 states (plus the unknown locations) 65 utilities did not answer the question about CII programs. The lack of answers could be interpreted as likely absence of a CII program.

Table 12. Incidence of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province

Availability of CII Programs With State/ Response No Conservation In Total Province Count Yes No Longer Program Develop. Responses Active California 63 62 27 2 13 42 Washington 19 17 8 1 6 15 Texas 20 19 6 3 6 15 Florida 28 23 5 2 9 1 17 Arizona 14 10 5 4 9 Colorado 18 13 4 4 8 Oregon 8 8 4 1 5 Georgia 12 10 3 3 3 9 Nevada 4 4 2 2 4 Rhode Island 5 4 2 2 North Carolina 7 5 1 1 3 5 Connecticut 7 3 1 2 3 Massachusetts 6 2 1 1 2 New Jersey 4 4 1 3 4 New York 6 4 1 1 2 Hawaii 1 1 1 1 Illinois 18 9 4 1 5 Indiana 5 2 1 1 2 New Mexico 3 3 1 2 3 Oklahoma 4 4 1 2 3 Utah 3 3 1 2 3 Iowa 4 3 2 2 Kansas 6 3 2 2 Kentucky 4 2 2 2 Minnesota 6 4 4 4 Missouri 3 2 2 2 North Dakota 2 2 1 1 Nebraska 3 1 1 1

32 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Availability of CII Programs With State/ Response No Conservation In Total Province Count Yes No Longer Program Develop. Responses Active Ohio 6 2 1 1 Tennessee 5 2 2 2 Virginia 11 6 3 3 Other U.S. states 22 16 3 1 5 9 Subtotal U.S. 327 253 75 16 94 3 188 Ontario 16 13 6 1 2 9 British Columbia 6 6 2 2 4 Alberta 6 3 2 2 Manitoba 1 1 1 1 Subtotal Canada 29 23 6 5 4 1 16 Grand Total 356 276 81 21 98 4 204 No CII programs reported in: AL, AR, DC, GU, LA, MD, MI, PA, SC, SD, WI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan.

The rate of adoption of water conservation also differed by system size as measured by total population served (both retail and wholesale) in three arbitrarily selected groupings. Table 13 shows the response counts and percent of respondents with conservation and with CII efficiency programs across three utility size categories.

Table 13. Effect of System Size on Adoption of Water Conservation

Ranges of Combined Retail Conservation Program CII Efficiency Program Response & Wholesale Population With With CII Count Percent Percent Served Conservation Efficiency Small: <25,000 73 35 48% 2 3% Medium: 25,000 ̶ 250,000 90 74 82% 25 28% Large" >250,000 59 46 78% 28 47% Total Respondents 222 155 70% 55 25% Statistics: Chi-square=25.0, d.f.=2 Chi-square=35.7, d.f.=2

The comparison of adoption rates shows that small systems were less likely to have a conservation program than medium and large systems. The adoption of CII efficiency programs increased with increasing system size. Three-by-two chi-square contingency tables (not included here) produced statistically significant chi-square values both for the conservation and CII efficiency programs. These relationships were confirmed using a t-test that compared mean values of total population served for utilities with and without conservation and CII efficiency programs (see Table A9 in the appendix for detailed test results).

4.2 Personnel and Budget for CII Programs The utilities with CII subprograms were asked to provide an estimate of the number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on the CII water efficiency/water conservation

33 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association programs and an approximate percentage of the utility’s total conservation budget for CII programs. Of the 81 utilities with CII programs 76 answered the personnel question and 69 provided information about the budget. Table 14 summarizes the responses about the allocation of staff to the CII programs. More than one-half (53.9 percent) of the respondents estimated the staff time between 1.0 and 2.0 FTEs, and a third of respondents provided estimates of less or equal 1.0 FTE.

Table 14. Utility Staff Working on CII Programs

Full-Time Equivalents Responses Percent <=0.5 13 17.1% 0.5 ̶ 1.0 12 15.8% 1.0 ̶ 2.0 41 53.9% 2.0 ̶ 3.0 6 7.9% 3.0 ̶ 4.0 0 0.0% 4:0 ̶ 5.0 1 1.3% >5.0 3 3.9% Total 76 100.0% Statistics (Full-Time Equivalent Employees): Average 1.26 Median 1.00 Maximum 10.0 Survey Question Q8: Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on your CII water efficiency/water conservation programs (1 FTE = 2080 hours/year).

The reported number of FTEs assigned to the CII program was compared to the number of nonresidential (NR) customers for 34 utilities (with available data for both items). The comparison revealed only a weak relationship (R2 = 0.21) where the number of FTEs was increased from 0.71 FTEs at the rate of 0.021 FTE per each 1000 of additional customers (regression: FTE = 0.712 + 0.000021*NR).

The answers to the question about the budget for the CII subprograms are summarized in Table 15. On average, about 20 percent of total conservation budget was allocated to the utility’s CII subprograms. However, 40 percent of utilities reported CII budgets to be below 10 percent of total budget and nearly 75 percent reported the CII budgets to be less than 25% of the total.

Table 15. Percentage of Utility’s Total Conservation Budget for CII Programs

Percent of Total Frequency Percent Conservation Budget <5 14 21.5% 10 12 18.5% 15 5 7.7% 20 5 7.7% 25 12 18.5% 30 4 6.2% 40 4 6.2% >50 9 13.8%

34 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Total 65 100.0% Statistics: Mean = 21.5%, Median = 20.0% Survey Question Q9 -- Approximately what percentage of your total conservation budget is for CII programs?

4.3 Estimated Water Savings from CII Programs

Survey respondents with CII programs were asked about the most recently estimated total water savings from their programs. About 60 percent (49 out of 81) of utilities with a CII program answered the question but only 46 percent (37 utilities) provided usable data (including several non-numerical entries). Eleven utilities reported savings in acre-feet per year (AFY). The reported values ranged from 1 to 3,010 AFY (the average was 447 AFY). Savings in million gallons per year were reported by 20 utilities and ranged from 0.5 to 730 MGY (the average of 100 MGY). Finally, six utilities provided estimates of savings as percent reduction in total annual CII water use. Four of the respondents reported 10 percent savings, one 7 percent and one 20 percent. The percent estimates of savings appear to be greatly over-estimated when compared to the annual volumes of CII use and in comparison to the savings in AFY and MGD that were provided by other respondents.

In order to normalize the reported quantities of annual savings, the reported quantities of savings were converted to 1000s of gallons per day and divided by the reported retail population served. While the retail population served is not the best “normalizing” variable because it is correlated primarily with residential use, it captures the “bottom line” reduction in the overall per capita use. Because CII use was on average less than 10 percent of total retail sales (see Table 49 in Section 8), the per capita savings would be understandably very small. The calculated per capita savings (for 28 utilities with available data on savings and population served) are shown in Table 16. As expected, the average (population weighted) per capita savings from the CII programs were 0.43 GPCD (the median value of savings was 0.28 GPCD) and 86 percent of respondents (24 out of 28) showed the converted savings of 1.0 GPCD or less.

Table 16. Reported Water Savings from CII Programs

Reported Retail Savings in Responding Savings in Population Gallons per Utility 1000 GPD Served Capita per Day 1 0.71 73,000 0.01 2 0.82 20,000 0.04 3 1.37 50,000 0.03 4 1.92 33,000 0.06 5 2.05 316,000 0.01 6 2.54 54,000 0.05 7 2.74 240,000 0.01 8 3.57 550,000 0.01 9 11.61 270,000 0.04 10 16.07 93,000 0.17 11 24.55 84,800 0.29

35 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Reported Retail Savings in Responding Savings in Population Gallons per Utility 1000 GPD Served Capita per Day 12 33.15 95,000 0.35 13 48.49 1,292,450 0.04 14 51.78 580,200 0.09 15 59.97 45,000 1.33 16 120.55 140,000 0.86 17 136.99 170,000 0.81 18 205.48 118,000 1.74 19 209.79 168,000 1.25 20 213.70 250,000 0.85 21 219.18 796,000 0.28 22 255.32 800,000 0.32 23 417.80 615,916 0.68 24 580.82 1,232,000 0.47 25 646.58 1,419,000 0.46 26 669.56 1,600,000 0.42 27 2,000.00 8,400,000 0.24 28 2,687.15 460,000 5.84 Total/Ave. 8,624.27 19,965,858 0.43 Statistics: N = 28, Weighted average (by population) = 0.43 gpcd, Median value = 0.28 gpcd, Standard deviation = 1.12 gpcd. Survey Question Q10 -- What are the most recently estimated total water savings from the CII program(s)?

4.4 Customer Classes Covered by CII Programs

Respondents with CII subprograms were asked to indicate which of the broadly-defined customer sectors are eligible for (or targeted) by their CII efficiency program(s). Table 17 summarizes the answers provided by 74 utilities (including 2 utilities without formal CII programs). The most frequent selection was “all CII customers” – it was selected by 74.3 percent of utilities. Interestingly, nearly one-fourth of respondents indicated the eligibility of multifamily residential customers among the CII subsectors.

Table 17. Eligible Customer Groups for Utility CII Programs

No. of Percent of Percent of Eligible CII Customer Groups Responses Responses Utilities All CII customers 55 44.7% 74.3% Multifamily customers 17 13.8% 23.0% All commercial customers 16 13.0% 21.6% All institutional customers 13 10.6% 17.6% All industrial customers 12 9.8% 16.2% Select groups of CII customers 10 8.1% 13.5% Total 123 100.0% 166.2% Survey Question Q11 -- What CII sectors are eligible for (or targeted by) your CII conservation and efficiency program(s)? (Please select all that apply).

36 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association More detailed classification of the eligible 20 pre-defined CII subsectors (or categories) was addressed in Question 12, where respondents were asked to indicate if the subsector was “not targeted” by the utility’s CII programs. If the subsector was included in the program, then the respondents were asked to rate the level of participation on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”).

Table 18 shows the number of utilities who answered the question and the number of “not targeted” responses for each of the 20 pre-defined CII categories. The last column of the table shows the percent of respondents who ranked the success of participation for each category and thus were assumed to “target” it. The three CII subsectors, which were targeted by close to 90 percent of respondents included: government and municipal buildings, schools and colleges, and large landscape areas. Also, slightly more than 80 percent of utilities included office buildings, restaurants and hotels in their CII programs. Military facilities and justice centers were least likely to be selected for CII programs.

It appears that the most frequently targeted CII categories are being selected because they are easily identifiable and would be more likely than others to agree to participate in the utility sponsored program. Other factors within the context of utility operations, available solutions (practices and or hardware) and expected water savings will also have an effect on participation and funding.

Table 18. Utility’s “Targeting” (Eligibility) of Subsectors for CII Programs CII Sub- Percent Responding CII Subsector sector “Not Targeting Utilities Targeted” Subsector Government & municipal buildings/facilities 61 6 90% Schools and/or colleges 58 8 86% Large landscape areas 59 8 86% Food and beverage service (restaurants) 57 10 82% Office buildings 56 10 82% Lodging and hospitality 57 11 81% Mixed use (commercial and apartments) 56 15 73% Health care facilities 53 16 70% Religious buildings 55 18 67% Laundries and laundromats 54 18 67% Manufacturing plants 55 20 64% Retail outlets 53 19 64% Retirement/nursing homes 57 22 61% Auto service and car washes 52 21 60% Food and beverage processing 54 22 59% Public pools and water parks 54 23 57% Golf courses 57 25 56% Warehouses 53 25 53% Justice centers 54 39 28% Military facilities 54 46 15% Other 16 13 19% No specific CII subsectors are being targeted 45 45 -- Survey Question Q12 (Part 2) -- If a CII subsector listed is not targeted by your utility, simply select the “Not Targeted” box. 37 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association

Table 19 shows a summary of subsector ranking in terms of CII program participation. The second to last (right-hand side) column shows the weighted average rank for each CII subsector. It should be noted that the expected value of average rank of 3.0 (which obtains when the same number of responses is given for each rank) may not be considered neutral because it is described as “good.” Therefore, the average ranking score of 3.0 or higher could be interpreted as good or as better than good program participation.

Six subsectors with the highest average rank for customer participation (in descending order) were: schools and/or colleges, large landscape areas, mixed use commercial and apartments, lodging and hospitality, government and municipal buildings/facilities, and public pools and water parks. The survey responses suggest that the categories with the highest ranking were also likely to be targeted by the CII subprograms (four of the six most frequently targeted categories were among the top-ranked six categories for customer participation). CII subsectors with the lowest ranking included: retail outlets, warehouses, and auto service and car washes.

Table 19. Utility Rating of the Level of Program Participation by CII Subsector

Success (Rank) of Program Participation Resp. CII Subsector 1 2 3 4 5 Score w/Ranks Very Excel- Poor Fair Good Good lent Schools and/or colleges 2 7 17 15 9 3.44 50 Large landscape areas 1 11 17 9 13 3.43 51 Mixed use (commercial and apartments) 1 8 16 10 6 3.29 41 Lodging and hospitality 2 10 17 10 7 3.22 46 Government & municipal buildings/facilities 4 16 15 9 11 3.13 55 Public pools and water parks 4 6 9 7 5 3.10 31 Food and beverage service (restaurants) 5 13 10 13 6 3.04 47 Golf courses 5 9 5 9 4 2.94 32 Justice centers 3 2 5 3 2 2.93 15 Health care facilities 7 9 8 8 5 2.86 37 Religious buildings 5 11 9 9 3 2.84 37 Office buildings 4 18 13 5 6 2.80 46 Military facilities 3 1 1 1 2 2.75 8 Food and beverage processing 6 9 7 9 1 2.69 32 Retirement/nursing homes 6 12 9 4 4 2.66 35 Laundries and laundromats 9 9 10 4 4 2.58 36 Manufacturing plants 6 12 10 5 2 2.57 35 Auto service and car washes 9 9 6 3 4 2.48 31 Warehouses 7 11 4 5 1 2.36 28 Retail outlets 8 16 4 3 3 2.32 34 Other 0 0 1 1 1 4.00 3 Survey Question Q12 (Part 1) -- Using the table below, please rate the degree of success in terms of program participation for the CII subsectors specifically targeted by your CII conservation and efficiency programs (on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”).

38 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Three respondents also ranked “other” subcategories. One utility initially targeted the top 7 CII customers for their rollout of the program and subsequently other participants have approached the utility to participate in the program. Another respondent included golf course efficiency improvements, which were completed mostly by the customers. Finally, one respondent commented that the utility works with all types of commercial customers and stated that “one is not ‘targeted’ over others and efforts are positive, not punitive since ‘targeted’ implies something negative.” 5. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION METHODS 5.1 Approaches for Targeting CII Participation

The approaches that are used by water utilities to select participants or target their conservation efforts are shown in Table 20. Predictably, the most common approach is to target the largest water users – it was used by about 73 percent of responding utilities. This implies the expectation by the utilities that the largest users have the largest conservation potential and the savings can be achieved in a cost-effective manner. The “ease of program implementation” was the second most frequent response used by about 44 percent of utilities. Most utilities use 2 or more approaches to target CII customers (2.7 approaches on average).

Table 20. Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts

Response Percent of Percent of Response Options Count Responses Utilities Largest water users 50 27% 73% Ease of implementation 30 16% 44% Customers with a large dominant end use of water 28 15% 41% High profile customer class (by public perception) 26 14% 38% By directive (political or regulatory) 19 10% 28% Through information obtained through professional associations 11 6% 16% Other (please identify): 13 7% 19% Does not use specific approaches to target efforts 11 6% 16% Total 188 100.0% 272.5% Survey Question Q13 -- What approaches does your utility use to target participants or conservation efforts? (Select all that apply).

“Other” approaches to targeting CII customers are summarized in Table A3 in the appendix. Some respondents mentioned “demand trending analysis” and “inefficient” users, but in general, the other approaches seem to emphasize voluntary participation of CII customers in the programs being offered. 5.2 CII Program Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives

The survey respondents with CII programs were asked to report on the use of 25 possible promotional methods and program delivery mechanisms and/or incentives to bring about the adoption of water-saving behaviors and technologies (Table 21). Nearly all utilities (95 percent) rely on water information and education programs to encourage the adoption of water

39 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association conservation. The three most frequently used mechanisms/incentives were free surveys and water audits, free landscape irrigation evaluations, and traditional customers’ rebates or vouchers. The efficiency financing options, including loan options, bill financing, and fee deferrals for water efficiency, were offered least frequently.

The almost universal use of information and education programs could be expected because they are generally viewed as a necessary component of any conservation program. Public information and education programs also serve to increase the awareness of the need to conserve water and can increase program participation. Free surveys and water audits and free landscape evaluations impose no cost to the customers and, in a sense, represent a prerequisite to implementation of conservation practices and hardware retrofits. Finally, the use of traditional customer rebates and vouchers is a well-tested and successful incentive. This was well summarized by one respondent who stated: “Custom rebates are effective. A combination of reasonable regulations, education and incentives works to change practices and equipment over time.”

Table 21. Use of CII Incentives and Delivery Mechanisms by Water Utilities

“Not Percent Responding Delivery Mechanism or Incentive Offered” Offering Utilities Responses Incentive Information and education programs 66 3 95% Free surveys and water audits 65 8 88% Free landscape irrigation evaluations 66 15 77% Traditional customer rebates or vouchers 67 16 76% Onsite technical assistance 64 20 69% Conservation rate design incentives 63 26 59% Direct distribution and/or installation 64 30 53% Recycled water incentives 63 37 41% Water budgets 64 38 41% Recognition incentives: 52 32 38% Certification 63 37 41% Efficiency partnerships 59 35 41% New construction certifications 61 52 15% Vendor, distributor and contractor incentives: 65 47 28% Contractor direct rebates 63 49 22% In-store product markdowns 63 55 13% Pay for performance incentives 63 44 30% Efficiency financing options: 57 50 12% Loan options 61 56 8% Grants 61 47 23% Bill financing 60 55 8% Fee deferrals for water efficiency 61 57 7% New construction conservation offsets 63 51 19% Landscape turf buy-back 64 37 42% Other 18 17 6% Survey Question 14 (Part 2) -- If a delivery mechanism and/or incentive listed is not offered to the CII sector by your utility, simply select the “Not Offered” box."

Table 22 shows the summary of the respondents’ ranking of the degree of success of the delivery mechanisms and incentives. Among the mechanisms/incentives ranked by at least 30 percent of

40 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association utilities, the top 6 mechanisms/incentives with the highest average scores were water budgets, onsite technical assistance, conservation rate design incentives, free landscape irrigation evaluations, recognition incentives, and free surveys and water audits. The lowest ranked incentive was in-store product markdowns, however only 8 respondents ranked this approach.

The frequency of use of specific mechanisms/incentives was not replicated in the respondents’ ratings of the degree of their success. Efficiency financing options, water budgets and conservation rate design incentives received high average scores for success but were in the middle range of the frequency of use.

“Other” comments on incentives given by four respondents were: (1) CII grants program with 25-50 percent of project cost not to exceed $20,000; (2) installing individual water meter on each apartment in Los Angeles; (3) water budgets are informational only; and (4) (as cited above) custom rebates are effective: a combination of reasonable regulations, education and incentives works to change practices and equipment over time.

Table 22. Respondents’ Ranking of CII Delivery Mechanisms and Incentives Success (Rank) of Delivery Mechanism/Incentive Number Average Delivery Mechanism or Incentive 1 2 3 4 5 with Score Very Ranking Poor Fair Good Excellent Good Water budgets 1 3 9 5 8 3.62 26 Onsite technical assistance 1 7 10 17 9 3.59 44 Conservation rate design incentives 2 3 15 7 10 3.54 37 Free landscape irrigation evaluations 2 9 13 16 11 3.49 51 Free surveys and water audits 3 12 13 15 14 3.44 51 Traditional customer rebates or vouchers 3 9 14 14 11 3.41 51 Information and education programs 4 10 20 15 14 3.40 63 Direct distribution and/or installation 1 8 13 3 9 3.32 34 Efficiency financing options: 0 2 0 3 2 3.71 7 Loan options 1 1 2 0 1 2.80 5 Grants 0 3 3 5 3 3.57 14 Bill financing 0 1 2 1 1 3.40 5 Fee deferrals for water efficiency 0 0 2 0 2 4.00 4 New construction conservation offsets 3 0 4 4 1 3.00 12 Landscape turf buy-back 2 6 4 8 7 3.44 27 Recognition incentives: 1 5 3 6 5 3.45 20 Certification 5 5 2 9 5 3.15 26 Efficiency partnerships 2 5 4 8 5 3.38 24 New construction certifications 1 0 1 5 2 3.78 9 Vendor, distributor and contractor incentives 2 2 6 5 3 3.28 18 Contractor direct rebates 1 1 7 2 3 3.36 14 In-store product markdowns 2 3 1 1 1 2.50 8 Pay for performance incentives 3 7 2 3 4 2.89 19 Recycled water incentives 5 3 6 8 4 3.12 26 Other 0 0 0 1 0 4.00 1 Survey Question Q14 (Part 1) -- Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the delivery mechanisms and/or incentives offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”).

The survey respondents with CII programs were also asked to report on the promotion and use of six general categories of equipment and 20 specific efficiency devices offered by their utility’s CII programs (Table 23).

Among the six groups of efficiency products, plumbing fixtures and irrigation efficiency products were used most frequently, by 65 percent and 59 percent of respondents, respectively. Process water conversion equipment was used least frequently (by only 30 percent of respondents). Among the specific efficiency devices the top four most frequently used included: faucet aerators (78%), toilets (77%), showerheads (75%) and pre-rinse spray valves (72%). Urinals, irrigation controllers, irrigation nozzles and heads, high-efficiency clothes washers, and irrigation sensor devices (SMS) were used by 50 percent or more of the respondents. Least used devices included pH meters, irrigation conduit repair/replacement, and counter-flow washing systems.

Table 23. Use of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment by Water Utilities

“Not Percent Responding Efficiency Devices and Equipment Offered” Offering Utilities Responses Device Plumbing fixtures and products: 52 18 65% Toilets 64 15 77% Urinals 64 27 58% Showerheads 65 16 75% Faucet aerators 64 14 78% Flow sensors 63 46 27% Flow control valves 63 43 32% Irrigation efficiency products: 59 24 59% Irrigation controllers (climate-based or soil moisture-based) 63 28 56% Irrigation sensor devices (SMS) 63 32 49% Irrigation nozzles and heads 63 28 56% Irrigation conduit repair/replacement 62 50 19% Drip irrigation equipment 63 43 32% Commercial kitchen equipment: 59 31 47% Connectionless food steamers 62 42 32% Pre-rinse spray valves 64 18 72% Commercial laundry equipment: 57 33 42% High-efficiency clothes washers 64 30 53% Multi-load washers 62 41 34% Cooling tower retrofit equipment: 59 35 41% Makeup and blowdown water meters 62 44 29% Conductivity controllers 61 44 28% pH meters 62 48 23% Process water conversion equipment: 60 42 30% Counter-flow washing systems 62 51 18% High-pressure low-volume sprays 62 46 26% Other 15 15 0% Survey Question 15 (Part 2) -- If an efficiency device or equipment listed is not offered to the CII sector by your utility, simply select the “Not Offered” box.

In terms of ranking the success in using these devices, the equipment group of irrigation efficiency products received the highest average rank (3.43), above the plumbing fixtures (3.35) (Table 24). In ranking the specific devices and fixtures the top six were (in descending order): toilets, drip irrigation equipment, showerheads, faucet aerators, irrigation nozzles and heads, and irrigation controllers. Conductivity controllers, connectionless food steamers, pH meters, and makeup and blowdown water meters were used least frequently. Respondents’ comments about other efficiency equipment and devices are listed in Table A4 in the appendix.

Table 24. Respondents’ Ranking of CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment

Success of Devices and Equipment Ranks Number 1 2 3 4 5 Average Efficiency Devices and Equipment with Very Score Poor Fair Good Excellent Ranking Good Irrigation efficiency products: 3 4 11 9 8 3.43 35 Irrigation controllers (climate-based or 5 5 8 9 8 3.29 35 soil moisture-based) Irrigation sensor devices (SMS) 7 5 7 6 6 2.97 31 Irrigation nozzles and heads 2 9 7 10 7 3.31 35 Irrigation conduit repair/replacement 3 2 1 3 3 3.08 12 Drip irrigation equipment 3 2 4 4 7 3.50 20 Plumbing fixtures and products: 2 8 7 10 7 3.35 34 Toilets 4 4 13 15 13 3.59 49 Urinals 5 5 11 8 8 3.24 37 Showerheads 3 10 11 14 11 3.41 49 Faucet aerators 2 11 14 12 11 3.38 50 Flow sensors 2 3 5 4 3 3.18 17 Flow control valves 4 7 3 3 3 2.70 20 Commercial kitchen equipment: 5 7 5 5 6 3.00 28 Connectionless food steamers 10 4 1 2 3 2.20 20 Pre-rinse spray valves 9 10 7 8 12 3.09 46 Commercial laundry equipment: 6 8 2 2 6 2.75 24 High-efficiency clothes washers 3 9 8 8 6 3.15 34 Multi-load washers 5 4 3 3 6 3.05 21 Process water conversion equipment: 6 1 6 2 3 2.72 18 Counter-flow washing systems 3 2 2 1 3 2.91 11 High-pressure low-volume sprays 3 4 2 3 4 3.06 16 Cooling tower retrofit equipment: 6 6 7 2 3 2.58 24 Makeup and blowdown water meters 7 3 4 2 2 2.39 18 Conductivity controllers 8 4 1 2 2 2.18 17 pH meters 7 1 2 3 1 2.29 14 Other 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 Survey Question Q15 – Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the efficiency devices and equipment offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”).

Fifty-three (53) survey respondents provided names of their CII conservation/efficiency incentive programs. In total, 194 names were provided and about 72 percent of utilities included three or more program names. The reported program names are listed in Table A5 in the appendix. For illustrative purposes, Table 25 below shows a listing of 58 landscape-related program names (organized by state/province) that were reported by 37 utilities. Similarly, Table 26 lists 49 names of programs that were provided by 34 customers, which are aimed at improvement of water-use efficiency of CII customers.

Table 25. Examples of Names of Landscape Related Programs by State/Province

State/ Utility CII Program Name - Landscape Related Only Province Arizona 1 Turf Removal Program Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily; Grass Strip Removal by Sidewalks 2 Large Landscape Conservation Program 3 Landscape Irrigation Assistance Program California 4 HELIUM (High Efficiency Landscape Irrigation Upgrade Measures) 5 Landscape Irrigation Survey Program; Controller Replacement Program 6 Cash for Grass Turf Rebate; Turf Conversion Demo Site Pilot 7 Large Landscape Surveys 8 Commercial Landscape Survey Program; Commercial Sustainable Landscape Incentive Program 10 Commercial Turf Removal Incentive 12 Landscape Audits by Water Resources Technician; CII Turf Replacement Rebate; Professional Landscaper Classes 15 Commercial Irrigation Efficiency Evaluations 16 Large Landscape Water Budgets 17 Irrigation Evaluation; WaterWise Landscape Rebate Program 18 Turf Conversion; Residential Smart Controllers; Large Landscape Smart Controllers 19 Smart Landscape Evaluation; Full Irrigation Audit for CII 32 Landscape Upgrade Grant Program; Rain Sensor Install Program; CII Turf Removal Rebate Program Colorado 20 Large Irrigation Audits 21 Free CII WaterSense Partner Irrigation Audits; Free Slow the Flow Irrigation Audits 22 Spray Valve Upgrade; Business Irrigation Assessment 23 Irrigation Audit Requirement for New Landscapes: Landscape Plan Requirements Florida 25 Landscape and Irrigation Evaluation Program 26 Sensible Sprinkling Program - Irrigation Evaluations with Rain Sensor Installation 28 Irrigation Evaluations 29 Landscape Irrigation Evaluation Nevada 33 Landscape Workshops 34 Water Smart Landscapes; Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate; Water Smart Contractor Oregon 41 Landscape Smart Controller and Multi-stream Rotor Rebates; Landscape Irrigation Survey Texas 43 Small Commercial Irrigation Retrofit Rebates; Large Property Irrigation Check- Up 46 Rainwater Harvesting System Rebate; Irrigation System Upgrade Rebate

44 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 47 Commercial Irrigation Technology Rebate Program Washington 51 Efficient Irrigation Rebate Program 54 Landscape Irrigation Other states 48 HOA Irrigation Tune-up 49 Weather-Based Irrigation Controller Program; Turf Replacement Program Ontario 36 Water Smart Irrigation Program 37 Irrigation Audits (Funded at 50% - capped) 39 Water Smart Irrigation Professional (WSIP) Program Survey Question Q16 -- What are the names of your CII conservation/efficiency incentive programs?

Table 26. Examples of Names of CII Efficiency Programs by State/Province

State/ Utility Names of CII Efficiency Programs Province Arizona 3 Commercial Water Audit Program California 4 Water Conservation Works Program 5 Water Savings Incentive Program 6 Sonoma County Green Business Program 7 SoCal Water$mart - CII (Rebates), Water Savings Incentive Program (Performance), Innovative Conservation Program (Grants) 8 Water Wise Business Survey, Guaranteed Water for Industry, WaterSmart Incentive Program 9 CII Water Use Efficiency Program 12 Water Savings Incentive Program, Onsite Retrofits to Reclaimed Water CII Indoor/Outdoor Audits 13 Recycled Water Conversion Program, Water Smart Rebates 15 Commercial Water Use Reviews, Commercial Leak Detection Assistance 16 Smart Rebates Program, Green Business Certification 17 WaterWise CII Survey and Incentive Program 19 SoCal WaterSmart Commercial Rebate Program 32 Blue Alert Program (Water Mgmt. Program), Blue Dashboard Program Colorado 20 CII Performance Rebates 22 Commercial Water Use Assessment 23 CRC (Center for Re\Source Conservation) Commercial Audits Florida 27 MIL (Mobile Irrigation Lab) Program Georgia 30 Certified Blue Water Conservation Program for Bars & Restaurants, Leadership in Water Conservation Award, Green Schools Nevada 33 Water Conservation Consulting Program 34 Water Efficient Technologies (WET) Program New York 35 Mayor's Water Challenge to Hotels, Water Challenge to Restaurants Oregon 42 Business, Industry and Government Program Texas 43 Custom Rebate 44 Water Efficiency Assessments, Water Efficiency Rebates 45 SmartWater Audit ICI Program 46 3C Business Challenge, WaterWise Partner Certification Program 47 WaterSmart CII Program Washington 54 Cooling Tower Rebates Ontario 36 ICI Consultation Audit Ontario 37 Restaurant Certification Program Ontario 38 Water Efficient Business Certification Program Ontario 39 ICI Indoor Water Assessment Program Ontario 40 ICI Water Capacity Buyback Program

As a follow-up to the ranking of the utility’s success with delivery mechanisms/incentives and efficiency devices/equipment, the respondents were asked if they focus more on customer participation or on water savings when assessing the success of the program. Table 27 shows the distribution of answers from 65 respondents.

Table 27. Criteria Used in Assessing Program’s Success

Response Response Assessment Criteria Count Percent Both participation and savings 47 72.3% Customer participation 10 15.4% Water savings 8 12.3% Total 65 100.0% Survey Question Q17 -- When measuring/assessing the success of the program delivery mechanism/incentives or efficiency devices/equipment do you focus more on customer participation or water savings?

On average, nearly 3 out of 5 respondents (72 percent) selected “both participation and savings” as their evaluation criteria. About 15 percent reported more emphasis on customer participation and about 12 percent focused more on water savings. 5.6 Promoting Programs to CII Customers

Water utilities use multiple methods to promote programs to CII customers. Among the 62 respondents who answered Question 18, approximately two thirds indicated direct mail and presentations to professional organizations, and nearly one half checked industry/association meetings and gatherings (Table 28).

Table 28. Methods for Promoting Programs to CII Customers

Response Percent of Percent of Answer Options Count Responses Utilities Direct mail 39 16.7% 63% Presentations to professional organizations 38 16.2% 61% Industry/association meetings and gatherings 29 12.4% 47% Customer bill insert 26 11.1% 42% Facility manager solicitation 25 10.7% 40% Newsletters 24 10.3% 39% Telephone solicitation 22 9.4% 35% Incentives to CII consultants (e.g. cooling tower firms) 13 5.6% 21% Other (please specify): 18 7.7% 29% Total 234 100.0% 377% Survey Question Q18 -- How does your utility promote programs to CII customers? (Select all that apply).

46 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Other methods of customer outreach were provided by 17 respondents and are tabulated in Appendix A (see Table A8). They included, among others, co-promotion with energy utility, the use of websites, social media, email blasts, radio and media advertising, and word of mouth approaches. 5.7 Use of Submission Forms for CII Rebate/Incentive Application

Another question about the program implementation process asked utilities whether they use online or paper submissions for customers’ rebate or incentive applications. Fifty-four (54) respondents answered Question 19 and 7 respondents included “other” application methods and comments (Table 29). Almost half of the respondents indicated using paper forms and one third used both online and paper submissions. The “other” comments included two responses explaining that the online form is in a PDF format and has to be downloaded and filled out. One respondent reported that customers do not need a formal application if staff are working with them but large custom rebate deals may take 6 months of partnership to bring it to fruition.

Table 29. Use of Program Submission Forms

Response Response Answer Options Count Percent Paper 26 48.1% Online and paper 18 33.3% Online 8 14.8% Other (only): 2 3.7% Totals 54 100.0% Survey Question Q19 -- Does your utility use online or paper submission forms for its CII rebate/incentive applications?

5.8 Program Coordination with Local Energy Utilities

Sixty-four utilities answered Question 20 about the coordination of programs with local energy utility. Table 30 includes the summary of results. Exactly 50 percent of respondents (30+2 responses) do not coordinate their programs with the local energy utilities and 50 percent (26+6 responses) do.

Table 30. Coordination of CII Programs with Energy Utilities

Response Response Answer Options Count Percent Yes 26 40.6% My utility also provides energy - and we work together 6 9.4% No 30 46.9% My utility also provides energy - we do not coordinate 2 3.1% Total 64 100.0% Survey Question Q20 -- Does your utility coordinate with your local energy utility on CII programs and incentives?

The respondents were asked about the role of water conservation in planning for utility’s water supply. Among 64 respondents who answered the question, nearly 86 percent answered that their utility considers conserved water as one of water supply alternatives (Table 31). Two “yes” respondents also added comments. One stated that conservation is treated as water supply alternative but “only in our most water supply stressed districts” and another stated “Not every year, however in this 2015 drought year - yes!”

Table 31. Water Conservation as Water Supply Alternative

Response Response Answer Options Count Percent Yes 55 85.9% No 9 14.1% Total 64 100.0% Survey Question Q21 -- Does your utility consider conserved water as one of water supply alternatives?

The 9 respondents who answered “no” included 3 from Ontario, Canada, 4 from Northwestern U.S. and 2 from California.

6.2 CII Program Performance Criteria

Two most frequently specified criteria for assessing the effectiveness of CII programs were participation rates and water savings to customer – both were checked by more than 70 percent of utilities (Table 32). Close to two thirds of respondents also indicated customer satisfaction and awareness and water savings to utility. Cost savings were mentioned as a criterion by only one third of the responding utilities.

Table 32. CII Program Performance Criteria

Response Response Percent of Answer Options Count Percent Utilities Water savings to customer 46 20% 73% Participation rates 45 20% 71% Customer satisfaction and awareness 41 18% 65% Water savings to utility 39 17% 62% Financial (payback period, ROI) 30 13% 48% Cost savings 21 9% 33% We do not assess the effectiveness 5 2.2% 8% Other (please specify): 3 1.3% 5% Totals 230 100.0% 365% Survey Question Q22 -- How does your utility assess the effectiveness of its CII programs? (Select all that apply).

48 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Three respondents provided “other” comments on assessment of program effectiveness. One stated that the utility is “currently developing a process to evaluate program effectiveness by deemed water savings.” Another mentioned “cost-effectiveness threshold based on avoided cost of building new wastewater treatment capacity.” The third comment was: “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.”

6.3 Methods of Analysis for Estimating Savings

Sixty respondents answered a question about the statistical methods of analysis that are or have been used to evaluate water savings of the CII conservation and efficiency programs. About 75 percent of utilities specified trend analysis (i.e., comparing water use before and after program implementation) as the method of analysis (Table 33). Two other statistical methods, comparison of means and multiple regression, were checked respectively by 22 percent and 13 percent of the respondents.

Table 33. Use of Statistical Methods for Estimating Savings

Response Response Percent of Answer Options Count Percent Utilities Trend analysis (before vs. after) 45 56.3% 75% Comparison of means 13 16.3% 22% Multiple regression analysis 8 10.0% 13% We do not carry out this type of analysis 9 11.3% 15% Other (please specify): 5 6.3% 8% Totals 80 100.0% 133% Survey Question Q23 -- What methods of analysis are or have been used to evaluate water savings of the CII conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply).

The “other” 5 comments on methods included: (1) before and after comparison for the customer over about 12 months, (2) the use of all of the above and other metrics at different times to evaluate water savings, (3) evaluation as a part of a comprehensive water supply plan demand study, and (4) the use of the AWE [Alliance for Water Efficiency] tracking tool to track savings from traditional plumbing fixtures; grant program requires savings reports for 5 years (trend analysis).

One respondent referred to the difficulty of measuring savings by stating: “Evaluation of outdoor [use] is particularly challenging for very large sites. We are optimistic that central control systems with flow sensors will facilitate this in the future. We use a variety of evaluation methods to estimate savings over time despite confounding variables that make this difficult; changes in production levels, weather (landscape efforts) and rates. Often a unique metric must be established for a specific industry. Car washes are evaluated by gallons/vehicle for example. Commercial large laundry on gallons per pound of laundry.”

Approximately one half of the 60 respondents (i.e., utilities) who answered this question indicated they use benefit-cost analysis to evaluate economic effectiveness of the CII conservation and efficiency programs (Table 34). About one fourth used the “total cost avoidance” and another one fourth reported they do not use this type of program evaluation.

Table 34. Evaluation of Economic Effectiveness

Percent Response Response Answer Options of Count Percent Utilities Cost-benefit analysis (Utility side) 33 35.1% 55% Cost-benefit analysis/ROI (Customer side) 29 30.9% 48% Total cost avoidance 14 14.9% 23% We do not carry out this type of analysis 15 16.0% 25% Other (please specify): 3 3.2% 5% Totals 94 100.0% 157% Survey Question Q24 -- What methods are or have been used to evaluate economic effectiveness of the CII conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply).

Among “other” responses one utility stated they have not done this type of analysis specifically for CII programs. Another respondent stated that “we conduct a very light analysis.” The third comment was that “cost-benefit analysis is only conducted for the customer for purposes of granting the incentives. Payback needs to be greater than one year.”

6.5 Sources of Evaluation Expertize

Evaluation of program effectiveness was reported to be conducted primarily by agency staff (i.e., internally). Eighteen respondents (30 percent) indicated that both internal and external evaluations are conducted (Table 35). Additional 5 respondents reported they use external consultants.

Table 35. Evaluators of Program Effectiveness

Response Response Answer Options Count Percent Agency staff (internal) 34 56.7% Both internal and external 18 30.0% Consultant (external) 5 8.3% No assessments are performed 3 5.0% Total 60 100.0% Survey Question Q25 -- By whom are these assessments of the program effectiveness conducted?

The success (or failure) of the CII programs has to be reported primarily to the internal management of the utility. This answer was given by 80 percent of the respondents (Table 36). The second most frequently mentioned oversight body was the state agencies. The need to report on program performance to an external oversight committee was selected by 12 percent of utilities.

Table 36. Program Performance Reporting Requirements

Response Response Percent of Answer Options Count Percent Utilities Internal management (Utility CEO/Manager, Board, 53 55.8% 80% Program Manager, Chief Financial Officer/Manager) State agencies 20 21.1% 30% We do not report the results of the program 9 9.5% 14% External oversight committee 8 8.4% 12% Other (please specify): 5 5.3% 8% Total 95 100.0% 144% Survey Question Q26 -- To whom does the program(s) need to demonstrate success? (Select all that apply).

Among “other” bodies to report the respondents mentioned: customers, the public, and elected officials/county commissioners. One respondent stated that they “…have a Community Conservation Committee, a Board of Trustees and a Public Utilities Office that all ask detailed questions about results. We also have an internal audit department that has looked at our CII programs.”

6.7 Collection of CII Facility-Specific Information

Respondents were also asked about the kinds of data/information concerning individual CII customers that are collected and the specific sources of these data. Table 37 summarizes the survey responses. The response options included 14 pre-defined types of data and three possible methods/sources through which these data could be obtained (i.e., collected during audits, on program applications, or from external data sources). The rows in Table 37 are sorted (from highest to lowest) based on the percentage of utilities that collected each type of data.

The four kinds of data that were collected most frequently included (in descending order): landscaping square footage, recent efficiency upgrades and retrofits, property age, and building square footage. About two thirds of respondents also reported collecting data on guest occupancy, throughput or customers served, units of production, and hours of operation. The specific sources of the data depended on the type of information but the most frequent two sources were facility audits followed by program application forms. External sources were used more frequently for property age, building square footage and sector sub-classification than for the remaining data types.

Data Collected From: Response Not Percent Type of Collected Data Program External Count Audits Collected Collected Applications Sources Landscaping square footage 57 26 16 9 6 89% Recent efficiency upgrades and retrofits 53 34 10 2 7 87% Property age 55 23 10 13 9 84% Building square footage 54 18 12 12 12 78% Guest occupancy 50 23 7 4 16 68% Throughput or customers served 50 25 6 3 16 68% Units of production 49 21 9 3 16 67% Hours of operation 52 22 9 4 17 67% Hotel beds 52 19 9 5 19 63% Sector sub-classification 50 14 8 7 21 58% Meals served 48 18 5 2 23 52% Employment 47 18 4 1 24 49% Presence of end users 47 18 3 2 24 49% Other 13 4 2 1 6 54% No CII customer-specific information is 33 ------collected Survey Question Q27 -- What type of CII facility specific information does your utility collect during audits or through program participation applications? (Select all that apply).

“Other” types of collected data mentioned by the respondents included: (1) existing fixture and appliance specifications, (2) age of fixtures and fixture model to determine design efficiency, (3) water flows and related maintenance practices, (4) number of fixtures and water-using process equipment, (5) make and manufacturer of water using equipment, and (6) maintenance company of equipment (for follow up and further data analysis). One respondent stated that they collect “enormous amounts of information to assess whether custom rebate options are really upgrades in water efficiency or just necessary for business.”

6.8 Use of Data for Benchmarking and Program Evaluation

Approximately one third of 61 respondents reported using the customer-level data from audits, program application forms and external sources to develop metrics for benchmarking and/or evaluating program success rates (Table 38). Another 18 percent indicated they plan to develop benchmarks.

Table 38. Use of Customer Data for Benchmarking and Evaluation Response Response Answer Options Count Percent Yes 21 34.4% No 25 41.0% We plan to develop benchmarks 11 18.0% Not sure 4 6.6% Total 61 100.0% Survey Questions Q28 -- Does your utility use this additional customer information to develop metrics for benchmarking and/or evaluating program success rates?

About one-half of the respondents stated that they do not use any external data sources to obtain information about their CII customers (Table 39). Those who rely on external data most frequently used geospatial data, tax assessor records or census data.

Table 39. Use of External Data Sources for Program Evaluation

Percent Response Response Answer Options of Count Percent Utilities Geospatial data 21 18.6% 34% Tax assessor records 15 13.3% 25% Census data 14 12.4% 23% Building ratings (Energy Star, LEED, other) 10 8.8% 16% Corporate efficiency / sustainability goals 10 8.8% 16% Third party business data 9 8.0% 15% Other (please specify): 4 3.5% 7% No external data sources about CII customers are used 30 26.5% 49% Total 113 100.0% 185% Survey Question Q29 -- Does your utility use any external data sources on CII customers to assist in evaluating program success rates and/or benchmarking? (Select all that apply).

The respondents who checked “other” option reported several other data types being collected from various sources including: (1) appliance/fixture manufacturer data, (2) third party efficiency rating like CEE [Consortium for Energy Efficiency] or MaP [Maximum Performance] Testing, and (3) industry code classification from government business registration records.

7. IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES AND PROSPECTS 7.1 Key Barriers to CII Program Participation

The survey respondents were asked to rate 14 pre-defined key barriers to CII program participation. Table 40 shows a summary of results. Two top rated barriers were of financial and economic nature and included the lack of sufficient capital improvement monies in customers' budgets and costs of retrofits to the participant versus incentive offered. The next two were related to customer commitment and included difficulty in customers getting high-level buy-in within their organizations and low general interest from customers or lack of programs. The barrier of “technology not proven/available” received the lowest score.

Slightly Very Response Unimportant Important Critical Average Barriers to Participation Important Important Count 1 2 3 4 5 Score Lack of sufficient capital improvement 60 3 4 19 19 15 3.65 monies in customers' budgets Costs of retrofits to the participant 59 3 5 19 16 16 3.63 versus incentive offered Difficulty in customers getting high- 58 3 3 26 17 9 3.45 level buy-in within their organizations Low general interest from customers / 59 4 10 16 19 10 3.36 lack of programs Perception of inadequate return on 59 4 8 22 17 8 3.29 investment (long paybacks) Low cost of water and wastewater 59 8 12 9 17 13 3.25 services Smaller customers don't have the time 59 4 13 20 13 9 3.17 to evaluate conservation options Complexity of upgrade or change 59 5 11 24 15 4 3.03 Investing in energy efficiency first 57 13 8 13 15 8 2.95 Legal/ownership/landlord-tenancy 59 7 16 17 11 8 2.95 restriction Customer perception of product 58 11 18 13 13 3 2.64 performance Customers perceive there are too many 58 10 19 17 9 3 2.59 bureaucratic hurdles to participation Technology not proven/available 59 16 21 17 4 1 2.20 Other 3 1 0 2 0 0 2.33 Survey Question Q30 -- Using the scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “unimportant” and 5 = “critical”), please rate the importance of each Key Barrier to CII Program Participation as provided in the table below.

Four respondents included comments on “other” barriers to participation. One responded defined three major barriers to CII water efficiency that the survey did not identify. These included: (1) “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. It is usually managed by a landscape contractor, or other personnel. (2) Most businesses lease and do not own the property they occupy, so there is limited interest in making efficiency improvements on someone else's property. (3) Many businesses that do have utility bills have them paid by an outside third party, such as a property manager, some of whom may be out of state. As a result, often times the business manager is largely unaware of water usage.”

Another respondent stated that “restaurants usually lease equipment so it would be regional distributors who need to change selection not the individual property. Need to obtain corporate approval for a single operation's participation if they are part of a large firm can time out a program.”

54 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Two additional comments stated that “customers are unaware of the programs available,” and “amount of time it takes customer to identify, evaluate, follow-through on projects (which takes away from the main focus on their business).”

7.2 Suggestions for CII Program Improvements

Fifty-nine respondents answered the question about possible ways of improving the CII programs (Table 41). Nearly 70 percent of utilities reported that their utility's CII program could be improved by refining marketing and outreach strategies. The second most frequent suggestion was to change (presumably increase) the value of incentives.

Table 41. Possible Ways of Improving Utility’s CII Programs

Response Response Percent of Answer Options Count Percent Utilities Improve marketing/outreach strategies 41 27.2% 69% Change value of incentive 29 19.2% 49% Additional examples/case studies demonstrating ROI and performance 23 15.2% 39% Change type of incentive 20 13.2% 34% Make simpler/streamline/less paperwork 17 11.3% 29% Move to online submission of forms vs. paper 12 7.9% 20% Other 9 6.0% 15% Total 151 100.0% 256% Survey Question Q31 -- Please indicate how you think your utility's CII program could be improved? (Select all that apply).

Nine respondents also offered other suggestions for program improvements; these are listed in Table A7 in the appendix. Two respondents suggested streamlining of CII custom rebates for certain type of projects which due to their uniqueness can be time consuming to ensure proper oversight. As one of these respondents stated: “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. 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.”

This comment indicates that enhanced customer participation in CII programs could be achieved by creating standardized incentive descriptions and program names for utility adoption by facilitating nationally recognizable opportunities that CII subsectors could adopt for promotion or facilitation. For example, hotels, restaurants and other user categories could communicate to their audiences to look for “Commercial Toilet Rebate” or other standardized programs, as replicable ways to reduce consumption.

Conferences (such as AWWA or WSI meetings) and informal networking are the two most frequently mentioned sources of information about improving utility’s CII programs (Table 42). Three additional sources, indicated by about two thirds of respondents were EPA WaterSense, AWE and AWWA resources.

Table 42. Sources of Information for Improving CII Programs

Percent Response Response Answer Options of Count Percent Utilities Conferences (e.g., AWWA, WaterSmart Innovations) 48 18% 84% Informal networking 45 17% 79% EPA WaterSense resources 41 15% 72% Alliance for Water Efficiency resources 39 14% 68% AWWA resources (e.g., manuals, journal, website) 37 14% 65% Industry specific publications/organizations 34 13% 60% Paid consultants 23 9% 40% Other 5 1.8% 9% Total 272 100.0% 477% Survey Question Q32 -- What are the sources of information you use to improve your CII program? (Select all that apply).

Other sources of information included: (1) discussions with other local/regional conservation coordinators and analysts, (2) a specially created audit tool, (3) input from member and retail agencies [to a wholesale agency], and (4) a regional organization that has worked on identifying tools needed by businesses to achieve efficiencies. Also, one respondent mentioned that they try all the sources listed on the survey question but few of those are up to date and because the technology changes quickly, they have to resort to getting up to date specification sheets from vendors to assess options.

8. RESPONDENT (UTILITY) PROFILES 8.1 Services Provided by Responding Utilities

The first “utility profile” question was about the types of services provided by the utility. The respondents were given a list of six types of service as shown in top six rows in Table 43. The question was answered by 275 utilities (or 72 percent of 383 survey respondents) and the answers were examined to determine the most common “bundles” of services that are being provided. These are shown at the lower panel of Table 43. The most common services were water and wastewater as represented, respectively, by 264 and 177 of responses. In terms of the implied bundles of services, nearly 60 percent of respondents (163 out of 275) provided water only or water and wastewater.

With Without Response Percent With Services Provided Conservation Conservation Count Conservation Program Program Water 264 176 88 67% Wastewater 177 123 54 69% Electricity 31 17 14 55% Natural gas 14 11 3 79% Solid waste 47 35 12 74% Storm water 60 43 17 72% Total Responses 329 229 100 70%

Water only 80 46 34 58% Water and wastewater 83 57 26 69% Water, wastewater and storm water 30 22 8 73% Water, wastewater and solid waste 17 15 2 88% Water, wastewater, storm water, solid waste 17 12 5 71% Water and electricity 9 7 2 78% Water, wastewater and electricity 8 2 6 25% Wastewater only 7 4 3 57% Other multiple services 24 13 11 54% Total utilities (Respondents) 275 178 97 65% Survey Question Q34 -- What type of services are provided by your utility (Select that apply)?

The breakdown of survey responses by the availability of a water conservation programs shows that 65 percent of utilities who answered the question have a formal program. The percentage of utilities with a program was slightly lower than average among the “water only” utilities, possibly due to the significant presence of wholesale providers in this group.

A total of 177 utilities answered both the question about the presence of the CII program and about services provided. Table 44 compares the responses by type of services. On average, 35 percent of the 177 utilities had a CII program. Among the groups of utilities with more than 10 responses, water-wastewater and water-wastewater-storm water-solid waste utilities show higher than average CII program adoption rates.

Table 44. Utility Services Provided and Adoption of CII Programs by Survey Respondents With Without Percent Response Services Provided CII CII With CII Count Program Program Program Water only 46 15 31 33% Water and wastewater 56 23 33 41% Water, wastewater and storm water 22 4 18 18% Water, wastewater and solid waste 15 5 10 33% Water, wastewater, storm water and solid waste 11 6 5 55% Water and electricity 7 3 4 43% Water, wastewater and electricity 2 1 1 50% Wastewater only 4 1 3 25% Other multiple services 14 3 11 21% Total 177 61 116 35% Survey Question Q34 -- What type of services are provided by your utility (Select that apply)?

A follow-up question (Q36) determined if the services provided by the respondents were at the retail or wholesale level (or both). About 56 percent of respondents provided only retail services and 35 percent both retail and wholesale (Table 45). There was no discernible difference in the adoption of water conservation programs between “retail only” and combined “retail and wholesale” utilities. However, “wholesale only” utilities were slightly less likely to have formal conservation program but almost twice more likely to have CII efficiency programs.

Table 45. Proportion of Retail and Wholesale Services

With Conservation With CII Response Response Program Program Answer Options Count Percent Percent Percent Count Count With With Retail 150 56% 98 65% 32 21% Both retail and wholesale 94 35% 61 65% 21 22% Wholesale only 25 9% 15 60% 10 40% Total 269 100% 174 65% 63 23% Survey question Q36 -- Are the services provided at retail or wholesale level?

8.2 Utility Ownership

Table 46 summarizes answers about the ownership structure of the respondents’ utilities. It shows that 94 percent of responding utilities are publicly owned and the remaining 6 percent are privately/investor owned.

Table 46. Ownership Profile of Responding Utilities

Response Response Answer Options Count Percent Publicly owned (by city/village, municipality, or cooperative entity) 257 94% Privately/investor owned 17 6% Other (please specify) 0 0% Total 274 100% Survey Question Q35 -- Is the utility publicly or privately owned?

“Other” ownership types were provided in the comments but all could be classified into public or private entities. Examples include: (1) regional wholesaler/special district, (2) water resources district chartered by the state of Florida, (3) enterprise-funded public utilities (water, wastewater, reclaimed water and solid waste); i.e., funded from user fees, not from ad valorem taxes, (4) authority--regional wholesale supplier, (5) private not-for-profit membership Co-Op, (6) privately funded through water and electricity sales but created publicly and functions more like a public entity. One responded mentioned that their utility also provides fiber optic internet (which comment was related to the previous question about services being offered).

The effect of ownership structure on adoption of water conservation appears not to be significant. Sixty-six percent of public utilities had conservation programs (169 out of 257) and 58 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 59 percent of private utilities (10 out of 17). Also, 18 percent of private utilities (3 out of 17) had a CII program compared to 22 percent (57 out of 257) of public utilities, roughly the same proportion.

8.3 Population Served

The estimates of retail population served were provided by 200 respondents and ranged from 108 to 8.4 million (Table 47). Estimates of wholesale population served were provided by 103 respondents (including 21 wholesale-only utilities) and ranged from zero to 18 million.

Table 47. Retail and Wholesale Population Served

Range of Population Served Retail Population Wholesale Population Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 5,000 or Less 20 10% 34 33% 5,000-10,000 29 15% 9 9% 10,000-25,000 24 12% 10 10% 25,000--50,000 20 10% 8 8% 50,000--100,000 30 15% 10 10% 100,000--250,000 39 20% 10 10% 250,000--500,000 14 7% 10 10% 500,000--1,000,000 17 9% 6 6% 1,000,000-5,000,000 6 3% 5 5% More than 5,000,000 1 1% 1 1% All Respondents 200 100% 103 100% Statistics (Population Served): Average 221,485 370,174 Median 60,000 19,000 Standard Deviation 651,912 1,804,431 Minimum 108 0 Maximum 8,400,000 18,000,000 Sum 44,296,981 38,127,952 Survey Question Q37 -- What is the estimated population served by your utility? Q42 (Wholesale-Only) -- What is the estimated (wholesale) population served by your utility?

The statistics in the lower panel of Table 47 show the average population served of 221,485 for retail service areas and 370,174 for wholesale areas. The sum of total population served (retail and wholesale) by the 222 utilities who provided population estimates is about 82.4 million.

8.4 Number of Service Connections

Table 48 shows the distribution of the reported number of residential, nonresidential and total connections in retail service areas. The numbers ranged from zero to 473,800 of total connections with the median of about 19,000 and the sum of approximately 9.3 million.

Number of Retail Service Residential Non-Residential Total Connections Response Response Counts Connections (Range) Counts Less than 1000 19 72 18 1,000 ̶ 2,500 15 23 14 2,500 ̶ 5,000 20 24 19 5,000 ̶ 10,000 27 21 21 10,000 ̶ 25,000 28 15 30 25,000 ̶ 50,000 23 5 26 50,000 ̶ 100,000 22 3 24 100,000 ̶ 200,000 15 0 15 200,000 ̶ 300,000 5 0 8 300,000 ̶ 400,000 2 0 3 More than 400,000 0 0 1 Total 176 163 179 Statistics (Number of Connections): Average 43,319 6,000 52,117 Median 15,000 1,625 19,004 St Deviation 67,645 12,609 80,063 Minimum 0 0 0 Maximum 398,000 78,000 473,800 Sum 7,624,122 978,047 9,328,945 Survey Question Q38. What is the number of retail service connections and the number of wholesale customers (if applicable) served by your utility?

The respondent utilities were also asked to provide the number of wholesale customers. Eighty- one respondents answered the question. The number of wholesale customers ranged from zero to 120; the average was 8 and mode was 2 connections.

For 166 respondents it was possible to calculate the ratio of the number of residential connections to total customer connections (Table 49) to be used primarily for data verification. The median value of the proportion of residential connections was 92 percent. About 70 percent of respondents reported the ratio of more than 90 percent.

Table 49. Percent of Total Connections in Residential Sector

Percent of Residential Response Percent Connections Frequency Less than 60% 1 0.6% 60 ̶ 70% 3 1.8% 70 ̶ 80% 7 4.2% 80 ̶ 82% 4 2.4% 82 ̶ 84% 9 5.4% 84 ̶ 86% 11 6.6% 86 ̶ 88% 14 8.4% 88 ̶ 90% 18 10.8% 90 ̶ 92% 20 12.0% 92 ̶ 94% 19 11.4% 94 ̶ 96% 22 13.3%

60 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Percent of Residential Response Percent Connections Frequency 96 ̶ 98% 13 7.8% 98 ̶ 100% 25 15.1% Total 166 100.0% Statistics (Percent of Residential Connections): Average 91% Median 92% St Deviation 7% Minimum 55% Maximum 100%

Another ratio variable was obtained by dividing the reported retail population served by the reported number of residential connections (also to be used primarily for data verification). The average value of this ratio was 3.44 persons per connection (Table 50). The higher values suggest a greater proportion of multifamily customers in the residential sector, which according to the responses to Question 11 (see Table 17) are often included in the CII sector.

Table 50. Persons per Residential Connections

Persons per Residential Response Percent Connection Frequency Less than 1.0 2 1.2% 1.0 ̶ 1.5 3 1.8% 1.5 ̶ 2.0 7 4.1% 2.0 ̶ 2.25 6 3.6% 2.25 ̶ 2.5 11 6.5% 2.5 ̶ 2.75 12 7.1% 2.75 ̶ 3.0 18 10.7% 3.0 ̶ 3.25 12 7.1% 3.25 ̶ 3.5 23 13.6% 3.5 ̶ 3.75 19 11.2% 3.75 ̶ 4.0 15 8.9% 4.0 ̶ 4.5 16 9.5% 4.5 ̶ 5.0 16 9.5% 5.0 ̶ 5.5 4 2.4% 5.5 ̶ 6.0 1 0.6% More than 6.0 4 2.4% Total 169 100.0% Statistics (Persons per Connection): Average 3.44 Median 3.41 Standard Deviation 1.05 Minimum 1.00 Maximum 7.14

Before asking for the estimates of annual water use, the respondents were first asked about their preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use (Question 39). The preferred measurement units were provided by 210 respondents. The responses indicate that the most common unit is average daily rate of annual use in million gallons per day (MGD), which was indicated by 153 respondents (73 percent). The annual use volume in acre-feet was reported by 26 respondents (12 percent) and 31 respondents (15 percent) did not wish to share water use information).

The reported data on water deliveries were reviewed and edited to be in consistent units of measurement. In order to verify the use of measurement units, total retail deliveries were divided by retail population served to calculate per capita water use. A common but easily corrected problem was the reporting of annual volume in million gallons instead of the requested daily rate of use in million gallons per day. In a few cases the reported numbers were in cubic feet although this unit was not used in the survey questionnaire. In several cases the units could not be verified and the reported numbers were omitted from the analysis. Table 51 shows the descriptive statistics for the reported volumes of water deliveries (all converted to million gallons per day, or MGD) and the range of the calculated per capita use in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD.

Table 51. Reported Water Deliveries and Per Capita Use

Residential Total Calculated Non-Residential Statistic Deliveries, Deliveries, Per Capita Deliveries, MGD MGD MGD Use, GPCD Respondents, count 109 94 118 115 Average 19.67 10.40 29.56 120.2 Median 4.40 2.51 6.85 102.7 Standard Deviation 64.96 22.54 82.87 56.4 Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.01 43.3 Maximum 654.00 181.00 835.00 318.0 Survey questions Q40 -- Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in MGD for 2014. Q41 -- Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in AFY for 2014.

The average per capita use was compared for utilities with and without CII programs (see t-test results in Table A10 in Appendix A). While the mean per capita use was slightly higher in the sample of 31 utilities with CII programs than in 50 utilities without CII programs (134.7 gpcd vs, 122.4 gpcd), the difference of means was not statistically significant.

8.6 Water Use of Wholesale Utilities

There were 25 wholesale-only utilities among the 383 survey respondents (see Table 44). The wholesale-only respondents were asked separate questions about population served, wholesale

62 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association customers, water deliveries and other characteristics. Table 52 shows the list of questions asked in the survey and the number of responses received.

Table 52. Questions and Responses for Wholesale-only Respondents

No. of Questions and Responses for Wholesale-Only Respondents Responses Q42. What is the estimated population served by your utility? 22 Q43. What is the total number of wholesale customers served by your utility? 21 Q44. Please indicate the total volume of water deliveries (treated and untreated) provided to your wholesale customers in 2014 (indicate in MGD or AFY). Water Deliveries (MGD): 14 Water Deliveries (AFY): 7 Q45. Do you receive information on the number of retail service connections and/or 21 wholesale customers and water deliveries provided by your wholesale customers (or member agencies)? Q46. What is the total number of retail service connections and wholesale customers served by your wholesale customers (or member agencies) in 2014? Total retail service connections: 5 Residential retail service connections (if provided): 3 Nonresidential retail service connections (if provided): 2 Total wholesale customers (if applicable): 2 Q47. What is your preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use? 10 Q48. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in MGD for 2014. Residential retail volume (MGD): 2 Nonresidential retail volume (MGD): 2 Total retail volume (MGD): 1 Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (MGD): 3 Q49. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in AFY for 2014. Residential retail volume (AFY): 0 Nonresidential retail volume (AFY): 0 Total retail volume (AFY): 0 Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (AFY): 0

The valid answers to Questions 42 to 45 from 21 responding utilities are shown on Table 53. The results show that four small utilities provided data on the number of retail customers in the wholesale service areas instead of the number of wholesale connections. Also, only one half of the wholesale-only utilities receive information on the number of retail service connections and/or wholesale customers and water deliveries provided by the retail (or retail and wholesale) customers (or member agencies).

Table 53. Responses from Wholesale-Only Utilities: Population, Customers and Water Deliveries

Receive Population Number of Water Water Utility Data in wholesale wholesale Deliveries Deliveries No. from service area: customers: (MGD): (AFY): Retailers 1 5,000 2,000 0.4 -- Yes 2 5,000 2,800 0.9 -- Yes 3 5,900 5,900 1.5 -- Yes 4 15,000 2 1.5 -- No 5 45,000 ------6 76,000 2,600 -- 60,000 Yes 7 100,000 3 12 -- Yes 8 250,000 14 31 -- Yes 9 250,000 4 24.6 -- No 10 270,000 128 -- 124,084 No 11 300,000 4 -- -- No 12 300,000 7 25 -- Yes 13 350,000 5 11 -- No 14 400,000 5 30.137 -- No 15 570,000 7 39.631 -- Yes 16 600,000 10 -- 54,963 No 17 800,000 11 80 -- No 18 2,086,352 7 -- 491,800 No 19 2,100,000 30 -- 336,914 Yes 20 2,300,000 6 164 -- Yes 21 18,000,000 26 -- 2,150,000 No

8.7 Utility Partnering with Water Organizations and Participation in Research

Among the 194 respondents who answered Question 50 about 91 percent indicated membership in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and 64% indicated they are also involved with the state or regional affiliates of AWWA. About two thirds of the respondents indicated that they would be willing to participate in the follow-up research on CII water efficiency programs (Table 55). Table 54. Utility Affiliations with Water Organizations

Response Response Percent of Answer Options Count Percent Utilities AWWA 176 42% 91% AWWA state/regional affiliate 124 29% 64% EPA WaterSense 75 18% 39% Alliance for Water Efficiency 49 12% 25% Total 424 100% 219% Survey Question Q50 -- Is your utility a member or partner with any of the following organizations? (Select all that apply)

Table 55. Willingness to Participate in Research on CII Programs

Respondent Willingness Response Response to Participate in Follow-up Research Count Percent Yes 131 64% No 74 36% Total 205 100% Survey Question Q52 -- Would you be willing to participate in the follow-up research on CII water efficiency programs?

8.8 General Comments and Contact Information

At the end of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to provide general comments about CII water conservation/efficiency programs or about the survey (Question 51). Thirty-seven respondents provided such comments and these are included in Table A11 in the appendix. The majority of the comments were about improving the survey (e.g., including metric units for water volume to accommodate Canadian respondents). Several comments included suggestions for improvement of CII programs. One responded from Florida suggested that “If Florida Chapter of AWWA can make a member-accessible, segregated list and abstracts/reports of CII programs implemented by other utilities, it would make new program planning easier and justifiable to upper management and decision-makers. Include contact information. The budget and staff cuts made during the "recession" are still being felt, leading to limitations in conservation program planning and implementation.”

A total of 144 respondents provided contact information which has not been tabulated for the purpose of this report because of confidentiality of the survey. The contact information is maintained by the AWWA Engineering and Technical Services for providing copies of the final report for survey participants and for future research contacts.

APPENDIX A – ADDITIONAL TABLES

State/ Other Reasons for Establishing Water Conservation Plan Province We are an investor owned water utility with many service areas. One service area has a severe supply issue, the others we implement our water conservation programs as a part Arizona of meeting regulatory compliance, utility stewardship and sustainability, as well as use our water conservation programs as a positive point of contact with our customers. Drought and redevelopment Avoid potential high marginal costs to acquire water supplies in dry (low supply) years Implementation of best management practices, lessons from prior drought, reduce dependence on imported water California State mandates State mandate due to drought Unpredictable water deliveries from State Water Project during times of drought and other environmental factors. It's a BMP as defined by the CUWCC and is in our UWMP. California City Council priority We count conservation as one of our water supplies Part of our Future Water Supply Plan (looking out 40 years) Long term groundwater overdraft, seawater intrusion. Serious lack of water in California We have been members of the CUWCC since 1991. We are assisting our 8 water retailers with meeting their AB1881 requirements. Conservation is one part of District's Water Reliability Mission to increase local water reliability, along with water recycling and ocean desalination in the future. Drought preparedness Colorado Drought mitigation Planning for buildout water demands now. Florida Per capita guidance Georgia Legal challenges to existing and future supply Hawaii Reducing development fees. Illinois Exceeding safe yield of water source during drought. Kentucky Seasonal only during periodic summer droughts (approximately every 8-10 years). New Jersey Purchase water supply limitations Oregon Customer Service. It's the right thing to do. Long term water management Texas Cheaper than purchasing new water supply, effective drought management tool Based on a water conservation plan established with our regulators. Virginia Regional cooperation In-stream flow for salmon habitat. Washington Assist customers with lowering water bill.

Limited Instantaneous Water Rights allowed from Dept. of Ecology Deferral / avoidance of future water acquisition. Simply put, the more water we can save Other through conservation the less water we have to purchase in order to meet future demand. States This is an arid region and drought has been underway for over a decade. It is only prudent (USA) to be efficient with ultimately… British A specific target with a deadline for reducing per capita water consumption (Directive Columbia from City Council). Reducing peak demands Ontario Direction from Council as part of the corporate objectives Benefit of electrical energy conservation for industry.

State “Other” Sources of Funding for Water Conservation AZ Our rebate program is funded by a specific high block surcharge. Administration of the rebate program and all other conservation expense is included in our regular operational budget. The [reported budget] dollars above do not include employee costs. CA Surcharge on water charge CA Water wholesaler funds some of the water conservation CA We are in the process of revising this item. CA Our budget includes water supply management as well as conservation, including salaries and benefits CA Augmentation charge CA Finance by both, Californian Metropolitan Water District and LA Department of Water and Power CA Volumetric expense recovery- based off quantity charge of usage CA West Basin Municipal Water District is a wholesale water agency. Conservation is funded through operating budget funds and mostly through grants and other outside funding it obtains. FL We are the funding agency - SWFWMD, not a utility FL Collection of penalties from water restriction violation citations. IL N/A. Water Conservation Ordinance in effect year-round since 2006. IN At the whim of the director. KS No program expenses MO None, our conservation program is based on high usage during minimized availability of source starting with notice of voluntary reduction of usage. NC We only engage when we are in a drought NJ There is a plan, but no assigned personnel. TX residential; dedicated funding from volumetric rates commercial; part of the meter fee TX Top tier customers usage is sufficient to offset costs of conservation budget. VA Payments made to the City in lieu of taxes WA The Conservation dues are paid to a regional entity that provides a portion of our water supply. WA Our wastewater utility funds the majority of our indoor conservation programs. Our utility funds outdoor programs and indoor programs for water customers on septic that don't qualify for the sewer rebates. Ontario Water rates

Table A3. “Other” Approaches for Targeting CII Participants or Conservation Efforts

State Other Approaches for Targeting CII Conservation Efforts Arizona Large landscape users Demand trending analysis California We are a wholesaler so our programs support the local retailer programs. General incentive program marketing & outreach, cooperation with member & retail agencies All those that approach us We evaluate largest use by normalized customer class Colorado Reclaimed water customers, restaurants, schools Through targeting of inefficient customers. Multi-family residential based on consumption per unit. Large irrigation based on gallons per square foot. Watering days are issued to all customers. We target the CII sector like this. It includes all of Florida them although we have more hotels, restaurants, and multifamily units in the CII sector. We consider all of these commercial in our database. We have a GREAT Business program. In order to get certified, they have to have a water Oregon efficiency audit of their business. We help them make corrections/improvements. Customers contact us directly, and are referred to us by customer service and other agencies. There are a variety of strategies that work. Often one stakeholder group is particularly active Texas when a new technology comes along. We work with professional associations, with individual property managers, and through general marketing. USA We offer limited audits to customers by request in multifamily and HOA sectors.

State “Other” CII Efficiency Devices and Equipment CA Training for facility staff on landscape maintenance and leak detection. CA By "degree of success" I have rated these devices based on the level of acceptance and retrofitting for the sites going through our CII program. FL Air cooled ice machine rebates - poor participation. MA We do not offer these devices/retrofits but provide information on how they may reduce water use in a facility. OR All of the above would be eligible through our incentive program, which is self-designed by the customer. TX Cooling tower cycles of concentration are mandated so we do not provide equipment at this point. A prior effort confirmed most were in compliance. 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. TX Potentially can offer some of these things through grant program but not offered through traditional rebate program. WA Air-cooled ice machines - very good.

Table A5. Names of CII Water conservation Efficiency Programs

Respondent State CII Program Name 1 AZ Turf Removal Program Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily 1 AZ Grass Strip Removal by Sidewalks 1 AZ Industrial Grants Program 2 AZ Large Landscape Conservation Program 2 AZ Rebate Program 2 AZ Retrofit Kit Program 3 AZ Landscape Irrigation Assistance Program 3 AZ Commercial Water Audit Program 4 CA Water Conservation Works Program 4 CA Water Champions Recognition Program 4 CA HELIUM (High Efficiency Landscape Irrigation Upgrade Measures) 4 CA Water SMART Allocation and Tiered Rates Program 5 CA Water Savings Incentive Program 5 CA High Efficiency Clothes Washer Program 5 CA High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program 5 CA Landscape Irrigation Survey Program 5 CA Controller Replacement Program 5 CA Direct Install Toilet Program 6 CA Qualified Water Efficient Landscaper Training 6 CA Cash for Grass Turf Rebate 6 CA Sonoma County Green Business Program 6 CA Barnicale Pilot Project 6 CA Turf Conversion Demo Site Pilot 6 CA North Bay Water Sustainability Coalition 7 CA SoCal Water$Mart - CII (Rebates) 7 CA Water Savings Incentive Program (Performance) 7 CA Large Landscape Surveys 7 CA Innovative Conservation Program (Grants) 8 CA Water Wise Business Survey 8 CA Guaranteed Water For Industry 8 CA Commercial Landscape Survey Program 8 CA Commercial Sustainable Landscape Incentive Program 8 CA WaterSmart Incentive Program (through MWD) 8 CA Water Savings Incentive Program (through MWD) 9 CA CII Water Use Efficiency Program 10 CA Coin/Card Operated High-Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate 10 CA Commercial Turf Removal Incentive 11 CA WaterSmart 12 CA SoCal WaterSmart Rebates 12 CA Water Savings Incentive Program by MWD 12 CA Landscape Audits By Water Resources Technician 12 CA Onsite Retrofits To Reclaimed Water 12 CA CII Turf Replacement Rebate 12 CA CII Indoor/Outdoor Audits 12 CA Professional Landscaper Classes 12 CA Urinal Valve Replacement Direct Install Program 13 CA Water Audits 13 CA Recycled Water Conversion Program 13 CA Water Smart Rebates (Through wholesale provider)

71 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Respondent State CII Program Name 14 CA Water Efficiency 15 CA Commercial Water Use Reviews 15 CA Commercial Irrigation Efficiency Evaluations 15 CA Commercial Rebate Program 15 CA Commercial Leak Detection Assistance 15 CA Water Upon Request Program 16 CA Plumbing Fixture Retrofit Program 16 CA Smart Rebates Program 16 CA Green Business Certification 16 CA Spray Rinse Valve Distribution 16 CA Large Landscape Water Budgets 17 CA WaterWise CII Survey And Incentive Program 17 CA Irrigation Evaluation 17 CA WaterWise Landscape Rebate Program 18 CA Turf Conversion 18 CA New Generation Nozzles 18 CA Residential Smart Controllers 18 CA Large Landscape Smart Controllers 18 CA Commercial High Efficiency Toilet 18 CA Water Broom 18 CA Pre-Rinse Valves 19 CA SoCal WaterSmart Commercial Rebate Program 19 CA Smart Landscape Evaluation 19 CA Full Irrigation Audit For CII 32 CA Toilet Direct Install - Multifamily 32 CA Landscape Upgrade Grant Program 32 CA Rain Sensor Install Program 32 CA Blue Alert Program (Water Mgmt. Program) 32 CA Blue Dashboard Program 32 CA Ami Leak Detection Pilot 32 CA CII Turf Removal Rebate Program 32 CA CII Rebate Program (Clothes Washers, Etc) 20 CO CII Rebates 20 CO CII Performance Rebates 20 CO Large Irrigation Audits 20 CO Water Budget Program 20 CO Low-Income Retrofit Program 21 CO Free CII WaterSense Partner Irrigation Audits 21 CO Free Slow The Flow Irrigation Audits 21 CO Other One Time or Seasonal Events (E.G. PRSV Push; Fix-A-Leak Week Efforts, Etc.) 22 CO Spray Valve Upgrade 22 CO Business Irrigation Assessment 22 CO Commercial Water Use Assessment 22 CO Toilet Rebates 23 CO Irrigation Audit Requirement for New Landscapes 23 CO Landscape Plan Requirements 23 CO Conservation Focused Tap Fees 23 CO Inclining Tiered Rates 23 CO CRC Commercial Audits 23 CO Staff Walkthrough Audits 23 CO Leak Notification Program 23 CO Periodic Review Of Water Use And Water Purchased In Tap Fees 23 CO High Efficiency Fixture Incentive During Competition For Development

72 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Respondent State CII Program Name 25 FL Landscape And Irrigation Evaluation Program 25 FL Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Replacement 25 FL Toilet Rebate Program 25 FL Energy And Water Audit 26 FL Sensible Sprinkling Program - Irrigation Evaluations With Rain Sensor Installation 26 FL Toilet Rebate Program 26 FL Indoor Water Conservation Kit Give-Away 26 FL Toilet Leak Detection Kit Give-Away 27 FL Urinal, Toilet Rebates 27 FL MIL Program 27 FL Air Cooled Ice Machine Rebates 27 FL High Efficiency Clothes Washers 28 FL Irrigation Evaluations 28 FL Inside Audits 29 FL Landscape Irrigation Evaluation 29 FL Toilet Rebate Program 29 FL Commercial Kitchen Pre-Rinse Sprayers 29 FL Tiered Rate Structure 29 FL Reclaimed Water 29 FL Water Restrictions Enforcement 30 GA Certified Blue Water Conservation Program For Bars & Restaurants 30 GA Leadership In Water Conservation Award 30 GA Green Schools 31 HI Toilet Rebates 31 HI WET is a Registered Trademark for Water Education for Teachers (so watch out) 33 NV Water Audit Program 33 NV Water Conservation Consulting Program 33 NV Landscape Workshops 34 NV Water Efficient Technologies (WET) Program 34 NV Water Smart Landscapes 34 NV Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate 34 NV Water Smart Contractor 35 NY Municipal Water Efficiency Program 35 NY Mayor's Water Challenge To Hotels 35 NY Water Challenge to Restaurants 41 OR Toilet/Urinal Rebates 41 OR Landscape Smart Controller and Multi-Stream Rotor Rebates 41 OR Self-Designed Incentive (up to 50% of project, no more than $5,000) 41 OR Landscape Irrigation Surveys 41 OR Site Visits with Written Reports 42 OR Business, Industry and Government Program 43 TX Custom Rebate 43 TX Small Commercial Irrigation Retrofit Rebates 43 TX Large Property Irrigation Check-Up (Regulatory Requirement) 44 TX Water Efficiency Assessments 44 TX Water Efficiency Rebates 45 TX SmartWater Audit ICI Program 46 TX Commercial Special Process Rebate ("Bucks For Business") 46 TX Commercial Kitchen Equipment Rebate 46 TX Rainwater Harvesting System Rebate 46 TX Irrigation System Upgrade Rebate 46 TX 3c Business Challenge 46 TX WaterWise Partner Certification Program

73 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association Respondent State CII Program Name 46 TX Reclaimed Water Program 47 TX WaterSmart Commercial Institutional And Industrial Program 47 TX Commercial Irrigation Technology Rebate Program 47 TX Firm Water Cost Share Program (Not Just CII Sector) 50 WA WaterSmart Technology Rebates 50 WA High-Efficiency Toilet Rebates 50 WA WashWise Rebates 50 WA Better-Than-Code Rebates (For New Development) 51 WA WaterSmart Technology Rebate Program 51 WA Efficient Irrigation Rebate Program 52 WA Commercial, Institutional, And Industrial Rebate Program 53 WA Energy Efficient Clothes Washers And Toilet Rebate Program 54 WA Landscape Irrigation 54 WA Direct Installation Of Fixtures 54 WA Toilet Rebates 54 WA Cooling Tower Rebates 48 USA HOA Irrigation Tune-up 49 USA High-Efficiency Washing Machine Program 49 USA Weather-Based Irrigation Controller Program 49 USA Turf Replacement Program 36 Ontario ICI Consultation Audit 36 Ontario ICI Capacity Buyback 36 Ontario Water Smart Irrigation Program 37 Ontario Restaurant Certification Program 37 Ontario WET Program - Water Audit Cost Sharing (At 50% to maximum $10,000) 37 Ontario WET Program - Water Savings Rebate (40c per litre of water saved in the long-term) 37 Ontario WET Program - Free Water Use Reviews 37 Ontario WET Program - Free Replacement Faucet Aerators and Showerheads 37 Ontario Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Replacement Program 37 Ontario Irrigation Audits - Funded at 50% (capped) 37 Ontario Sub-Metering Cost Sharing (At 50% to maximum $10,000) 38 Ontario Water Efficiency Technology (WET) Program 38 Ontario Water Efficient Business Certification Program 38 Ontario Pre-Rinse Spray Valve Replacement Program 39 Ontario ICI Indoor Water Assessment Program 39 Ontario Water Smart Irrigation Professional (WSIP) Program 40 Ontario Institutional, Commercial and Industrial (ICI) Water Capacity Buyback Program 40 Ontario Royal Flush Toilet Rebate Program 40 Ontario Smart Washer Rebate Program Survey Question Q16 -- What are the names of your CII conservation/efficiency incentive programs? (E.g. Water Efficient Technologies (WET) Program, Landscape Irrigation Survey For CII and Common Area Landscapes, Cooling Tower High-Efficiency Drift Elimination Retrofit Program).

No. "Other" Outreach Method 1 Annual technical workshops and seminars 2 Co-promotion with energy utility programs 3 Customized drought reports (2014 and 2015) 4 Email blasts from various lists 5 In the past has been through our retail water customers (we are a wholesale water provider), working on changing that model to get more participation. 6 Media campaigns, general program collaterals, selected outreach events 7 Passive and on City website currently. Have written to all eligible properties several years ago. 8 Presentations to community groups and media advertisements 9 Pretreatment Surveys, FOG Outreach and Regulated Discharger Inspections/Site Visits, Tabling at business events like local Chamber of Commerce forums 10 Rebates info for commercial customers is available on our website at OUC.com 11 Social media 12 We try to maintain relationship with stakeholder groups within each group of CII customers. We also establish relationships with as many top users as possible. When there are regulations on CII for indoor or landscape, these are also often a catalyst for the customer to use the custom rebate for efficiency upgrades. 13 Website at www.savedallaswater.com 14 Website, Account Executives, Power Conservation Team referrals 15 Website, social media, radio advertising 16 Website. Other agencies promote our program. 17 Word of mouth works well. Marketing to CII administration.

No. "Other" Suggestions for Improving CII Programs 1 Target efforts to a specific end use (e.g. target Cooling Towers) to make the money go farther and get more bang for the buck. 2 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. 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. 3 Generate more information from retail customers- if they are not willing to share retail data and collaborate on outreach efforts it is difficult to do effective targeted marketing 4 Improving ordinances that require conservation 5 Add staffing so that we can handle more. 6 We streamlined turn-key retrofit programs for toilets and other fixtures. Custom rebates cannot be streamlined because each one is unique. It does help once we have done one type of project because we have the data to feel more confident of the savings for the next similar project. The first project of each kind can be time consuming to ensure proper oversight. 7 Would need more resources to implement improvements 8 Better strategy for addressing the needs up the chain in the business to ensure full project buy in. Disconnect between facility managers, corporate, and operators. 9 Hire staff to implement programs.

State/ Reasons for Not Having a Conservation or CII Program Province AZ Water conservation is coordinated by water providers. We are a wastewater provider and having a water conservation program would be duplicative AZ I was only allowed to select one reason but you ask for "reasons". I would also select: need information about how to establish and maintain program. We have an unofficial CII program that provides customers with water budgets for outdoor water use and rebates which target both indoor and outdoor water use. We will have an official CII program in the future but progress is slow due to staffing concerns. CA CII falls into same program as other customers. We have a small percentage of CII customers. CA Most of the programs are available to all customer classes, only funding levels are higher for CII versus Residential. CA Specialized knowledge and skill sets can be needed to offer technical assistance over a range of different business sectors. CO There is no viable reason to not support this type of program CT We have a minimal program regarding customer education on conservation practices but it is not mandatory. FL Minimal commercial and industrial use in service area. FL We reached market saturation for commercial spray head replacements FL Have not progressed to a special program for CII yet. CII customers take advantage of irrigation audits and rebates as do residential customers. FL Agency not sure if implementation is within their purview GA Political sensitivity to providing incentives to for-profit entities GA This Utility is a water wholesaler. We sell water to counties, cities that DO have formal conservation programs. We participate with them, support them and more. We work with schools and media to promote. They fix rates and give rebates for fixtures, etc. It is complimentary. GA Not familiar with it - the City of Savannah Georgia has one of the lowest water and sewer rates in the S/E which is a double edged sword - good for the Politicians but bad for effective funding of operations and capital improvements GU The maintenance of the water distribution system was so poor until about 12 years ago that the need for water line replacement has taken precedence. Funding was not available for those projects until this year. IL We offered the pre-spray rinse green nozzle to customers with commercial kitchens and saturated the market. They continue to be offered by request. IL Never gave it much thought. IN Don't know what that is KY NA LA This is not an issue at this time. MA City takes money from water use as a revenue stream. NC Currently have significant capacity and need for additional revenue from water sales NC We would only engage if needed because of drought, (water supply ) NC We are a 100% water wholesaler, utilities that purchase from us would implement these programs. NC Main/original program target was residential sector. NY Our supply source is Lake Ontario, we don't have supply limitation concerns. OK Working on program development PA We are not in a conservation mode. We have plenty of water. TX Working with customers for coordination (we are a wholesaler) TX Residential has been our primary focus since establishing a WC program. There is also a thought that revenue generating properties can invest in their own ways to reduce their consumption, rather than the utility subsidizing their reduction.

77 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association State/ Reasons for Not Having a Conservation or CII Program Province TX Current Policy prohibits incentives for Conservation; any CII efficiency programs are implemented and funded by the Customer without involvement of the Water Utility. VA We have a water conservation plan. VA We are a wholesale utility that serves five water retail utilities that maintain formal water conservation programs. WA Not a priority for our community WA We are using portions of Washington State guidelines for conservation. No formal program. WI Our ample supply, treatment and distribution capacity make "conservation" programs focusing on reducing water use unnecessary. We do, however, have a "Use Water Wisely" program to help residential customer find and fix leaks and know how to efficiently use their water. CII organizations have resources and motivation to carry out water efficiency programs, with the incentive/reward being reduced water bills. WI Not enough time in my day to put a program together. USA We have a metered system, not much waste Alberta Is not a major concern for this utility at this time British ICI programs are currently in development. The residential programs are well established. Columbia Saskatchewan Water wholesaler only

Table A9. Comparison of Means Test of Population Served Between Utilities With and Without Programs

With Without Without With CII Statistic Conservation Conservation CII Program Program Program Program Mean (Population Served) 521,496 196,216 1,144,062 185,957 Variance 1,933,446 424,166 3,142,871 356,832 Observations 155 67 55 167 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 0 Degrees of Freedom (df) 185 54 t Stat -1.99 2.26 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.024 0.014 t Critical one-tail 1.65 1.67 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.048 0.028 t Critical two-tail 1.97 2.00 T-Test: Two-sample assuming unequal variances

With CII Without CII Statistic Program Program Mean (Per Capita Use) 134.7 122.4 Variance 3874 2830 Observations 31 50 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 Degrees of Freedom (df) 56 t Stat 0.9104 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1833 t Critical one-tail 1.6725 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.3665 t Critical two-tail 2.0032 T-Test: Two-sample assuming unequal variances

Table A11. General Comments on CII Programs and the Survey

State/ No. General Comment Province 1 Alberta A metric option would be appreciated for reporting water use data. 2 Alberta How best to work with ICI customers when time is very sensitive and water is very cheap? 3 AZ This survey is great! Looking forward to learning the results. However, the survey implies that all utilities desire to make end users save water; some utilities see declining use as a serious problem. We have different goals in each of the many districts that we own and operate. Some districts are seeing enough (background/natural/cultural) decline in use that it reduces revenues and impacts the utility's ability to invest in fixing aging infrastructure. The desire to "improve" a utility's water conservation program is a component of the overall issues and goals of that utility. 4 AZ We are a wastewater provider. 5 AZ We are just a very small water supply system. Usage is mostly seasonal during the summer months. We are about 400 acres of mountain community north of Tucson Az. We are a gravity, spring fed system with 2 million gallons of storage. 6 AZ None 7 British Was not clear from the initial questions that we were being asked about more than just CII Columbia water conservation / efficiency programs (e.g., for the residential sector). 8 British It would be nice if you allowed a population range. We go from 500 to 10,000 people Columbia depending on the season. The other would be if you allowed metric measurements. After all that's how Canadian's track flows. More information from smaller communities on how they were able to successfully keep conservation going would be great. 9 CA None 10 CA Our CII program is only a couple years old, but we have found that many of our recommendations are maintenance related rather than fixture upgrades (i.e., replacing flappers or flushometer cartridges). We offer a free survey and cost benefit analysis to any CII customer who is interested, and incentives are on a first-come, first-served basis per fiscal year. 11 CA We are in charge of managing the groundwater basin in the Pajaro Valley. We charge for water extraction and we deliver tertiary water to coastal farmers because our modeling has

79 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association State/ No. General Comment Province shown that creating a hydro-static barrier will slow seawater intrusion. Because we use the City of Watsonville's Waste Water we don't have as much of an incentive to lower effluent flows into the plant because we are using all available water. 12 CO I am a contract operator for O&M, therefore answers were general in nature. 13 FL It would be beneficial to have benchmark consumption data for different CII categories to help conservation efforts. Additionally, quantifying the water savings from different CII conservation measures would help with decision making and budgeting. 14 FL If Florida Chapter of AWWA can make a member-accessible, segregated list and abstracts/reports of CII programs implemented by other utilities, it would make new program planning easier and justifiable to upper management and decision-makers. Include contact information. The budget and staff cuts made during the "recession" are still being felt, leading to limitations in conservation program planning and implementation. 15 FL None 16 FL Our wholesale deliveries to our 6 member governments does not make up all of the supply in the region. Also, we have incomplete 2014 data, so you were provided the October 2013 averages. 17 GA The water utility can certainly be consider the expert in residential water conservation; however, the end user is much more equipped to understand their water use in the commercial and industrial application. Applying rates to benefit the for-profit business is a concern, especially when considering the lower income customers. 18 GA Make water conservation simple: water leak detection program with immediate repairs (after 811 notification of course); water meter repairs and servicing; meter accuracy testing and immediate correction as needed; billing software integration with meter operations; implementation of AMR / AMI / AMA systems; fire hydrant servicing; water valve exercising program / servicing; prioritize spending; sub-contract out services as needed; others. The survey should also address capital improvement funding and water and sewer rates and rate structures 19 GU See item 2 20 IL Our Water Conservation-Efficiency initiative is new- in its second year. Last year it received the WEGE Small Cities Sustainability Best Practices Award by the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSCI). (See: http://www.cityhpil.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1095) It incorporates tiered rates, sprinkling restrictions, moisture-sensing irrigation controllers & a public education component. (See: http://www.cityhpil.com/index.aspx?nid=357, http://www.cityhpil.com/index.aspx?nid=666). We are active members of the ISAWWA Water Efficiency Committee. One half of our production goes to five satellite systems in neighboring communities. 21 IL CII = ???? Is this C2? Is this CLL?? Is this Cii? A Google search provided the following: Construction Industry Institute, Chartered Insurance Institute, or Council of Institutional Investors? 22 KS none at this time 23 MI We don't have a formal program but we do offer separate meters for residential irrigation, we monitor for high usage, we only allow trucks to fill from one metered hydrant, get monthly reports from the fire department on their usage for fires and check our water loss monthly. 24 MN Chief means for regulatory compliance and conservation is increasing block water rates. 25 MO We work with our CII customer more on an individual basis, especially when we were in a drought. They are eligible for our WaterSense HET rebate - but it is limited, and is focused primarily on residential. We do not have enough participation or savings from that program alone to separate CII program costs or savings. 26 MO None 27 CA I have answered this survey from a California American Water perspective. We do water efficiency in many other ways in American Water, but it didn't really seem to fit the

80 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association State/ No. General Comment Province purpose of this survey to respond more holistically since our California subsidiary does the most efficiency work pertaining specifically to CII customers. 28 Ontario Only 3 comments: 1. This survey took much longer than 30 minutes as was suggested. 2. All of our statistics are in Megalitres per day so converting everything took some time. Perhaps that should be a reporting option on future surveys. Another option is that the United States and/or the AWWA should catch up with the rest of the world and go metric). 3. The final page asking for contact information has a pull down menu for State/Province. There are no province selections. 29 Ontario We are currently updating our Water Efficiency strategy. This will determine where the CII program (or ICI) program will be headed for the next 5 years. 30 Ontario Question 42 does not permit the entry of a Canadian province. That is specifically we are in Ontario. 31 OR It was difficult to answer some of the questions, especially when there was larger category that required a response, followed by subcategories. At times we include our multi-family in our Business, Industry and Government (BIG) program, but for the responses here, we did not include them. Many of the larger multi-family buildings have boilers, cooling towers, multi-use, e.g., restaurants, other businesses below and are all on same meter. We have 2 staff people to service the 19,650 accounts, and we do not market our services. Customers are either self-referred or are referred by our customer service staff, other city agencies, or other organizations. Our BIG program and our residential program work as a team to accomplish the work we need to do for our customers. 32 PA None 33 TX The survey was challenging on the near end and I almost gave up. It kept kicking it back until I entered 1 over and over on the connections answers. We are a big utility...not one connection of each type. I could send you the exact break down in an e-mail if you inquire. 34 TX We survey our customers about water conservation program implementation yearly but only ask for connection data in the year prior to developing our 5 year water conservation plan so I don't have 2014 data CII has not been a specific focus of our water conservation program lately although we plan to increase targeted marketing for simple retrofits like pre- rinse spray valves next year. When we first started the programs we hired a dedicated staff person to do CII audits but we did not have the follow-through to incentive program participation that we were hoping for, particularly in the private sector and eventually eliminated that position. We did have some good participation with schools early on. 35 USA The meters take care of most of the waste. 36 WA Caution when evaluating data--fields for Q11 allowed entry of numbers with comma separators; fields for Q12 did not allow entry of numbers with comma separators--at first I thought it didn't like the zero in the wholesale field and I was going to enter a fake "1"; make sure you double check these fields on all responses. Anticipating rapid growth in the CII sector in our City of >18,000 persons. 37 WI I am all for water conservation and efficiency, however, my fear is that AWWA will put together guidance documents/plans that will then be adopted by the EPA. Then it will become a Law. My problem is that we do not have enough time or bodies to implement any more programs. Making more laws does not give me more time in my day to get my work done. Survey Question Q51. Are there any comments you would like to make about CII water conservation/efficiency programs or about this survey? If so, please offer your comments below.

Figure A1. Climatic Regions of the United States. (As used in the Third National Climate Assessment Report. (www.globalchange.gov)

APPENDIX B – SURVEY INSTRUMENT

National Survey of Utility CII Water Efficiency Programs

Introduction

The American Water Works Association requests your utility’s participation in this survey of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Water Efficiency Programs. The survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The target respondents for this survey are utility personnel working with water use and conservation including General Managers, Utility Directors, Planners, Financial Managers, and Conservation Coordinators.

Your utility’s responses will be kept strictly confidential and will be grouped with information from other utilities for statistical purposes only. If you have any questions about the survey, or if you believe this survey is best directed elsewhere in your organization, please contact Lindsey Geiger at [email protected].

Thanks in advance for your contribution to this collective effort and for supporting AWWA's mission to provide solutions to effectively manage the world's most important resource.

1. Does your utility have a formal water conservation or water use efficiency program (or programs)?

Yes

In development but not implemented

No in-house program – programs are offered by our wholesale utility

Previously existing program has been discontinued

2. What are the primary reasons for establishing water conservation or water use efficiency program(s) at your utility? (Select all that apply):

Demand approaching capacity of water treatment plant(s)

Exceeding safe yield of water supply source(s)

Approaching capacity of wastewater treatment plant(s)

Deferral/avoidance of infrastructure investments

Reduction of O&M costs and/or energy costs

Regulatory compliance

Utility stewardship and sustainability

Other reasons (please specify):

3. Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on your water efficiency/water conservation programs (i.e. 1 FTE = 2080 hours/year, 1.5 FTE=3120 hours/year).

Total FTE employees:

4. Does your utility have a dedicated budget for water conservation and efficiency programs?

Yes

Budgeted amount in 2014 ($):

Actually spent amount in 2014 ($):

Budgeted amount for 2015 ($):

6. How does your utility finance your conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply)

Operating budget funds

Capital improvement funds

Taxes, special fees

Connection charges

Development or impact fees

Grants or other outside funding sources

Dedicated funding from volumetric rates

Other (please identify)

7. Does your conservation and efficiency program include subprograms or components directed to the CII subsector?

Yes

No longer active

Currently in development

8. Please estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees that currently work on your CII water efficiency/water conservation programs (1 FTE = 2080 hrs/yr).

Total FTE employees:

Percentage of your total conservation budget for CII programs:

10. What are the most recently estimated total water savings from the CII program(s) (Use dropdown list to select unit of measurement):

Units:

Total savings:

11. What CII sectors are eligible for (or targeted by) your CII conservation and efficiency program(s)? (Please select all that apply)

All CII Customers

All commercial customers

All industrial customers

All institutional customers

Multifamily customers

Select groups of CII customers

12. Using the table below, please rate the degree of success in terms of program participation for the CII subsectors specifically targeted by your CII conservation and efficiency programs (on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”). If a CII subsector listed is not targeted by your utility, simply select the “NOT TARGETED” box.

Does not use specific approaches to target efforts

Largest water users

Customers with a large dominant end use of water

High profile customer class (by public perception)

Ease of implementation

By directive (political or regulatory)

Through information obtained through professional associations

Other (please identify):

89 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 14. Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the delivery mechanisms and/or incentives offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”). If a delivery mechanism and/or incentive listed is not offered to the CII sector by your utility, simply select the “NOT OFFERED” box.

Free surveys and water audits

15. What are the names of your CII conservation/efficiency incentive programs? (E.g. Water Efficient Technologies (WET) Program, Landscape Irrigation Survey For CII and Common Area Landscapes, Cooling Tower High-Efficiency Drift Elimination Retrofit Program).

10.

91 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 16. Using the table below, please rate the degree of success of the efficiency devices and equipment offered by your utility on a scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “poor success” and 5 = “excellent success”). If an efficiency devices and equipment listed is not offered to the CII sector by your utility, simply select the “NOT OFFERED” box.

Check if 5 - NOT OFFERED 1 - Poor 2 - Fair 3 - Good 4 - Very Good Excellent

Commercial laundry equipment

Irrigation controllers (climate-based or soil moisture-based)

17. When measuring/assessing the success of the program delivery mechanism/incentives or efficiency devices/equipment do you focus more on customer participation or water savings?

Customer participation

Water savings

Both participation and savings 18. How does your utility promote programs to CII customers? (Select all that apply).

Customer bill insert

Direct mail

Telephone solicitation

Industry/association meetings and gatherings

Presentations to professional organizations

Newsletters

Facility manager solicitation

Incentives to CII consultants (e.g. cooling tower firms)

Yes

My utility also provides energy - and we work together

My utility also provides energy - we do not coordinate

Comments:

20. Does your utility coordinate with your local energy utility on CII programs and incentives?

Yes

My utility also provides energy - and we work together

My utility also provides energy - we do not coordinate

Comments:

21. Does your utility consider conserved water as one of water supply alternatives?

Yes

Other (please explain):

22. How does your utility assess the effectiveness of its CII programs? (Select all that apply).

Participation rates

Water savings to customer

Water savings to utility

Cost savings

Financial (payback period, ROI)

Customer satisfaction and awareness

We do not assess the effectiveness

Other (please specify):

23. What methods of analysis are or have been used to evaluate water savings of the CII conservation and efficiency programs? (Select all that apply).

Trend analysis (before vs. after)

Comparison of means

Multiple regression analysis

We do not carry out this type of analysis

Other (please specify):

Cost-benefit analysis (Utility side)

Cost-benefit analysis/ROI (Customer side)

Total cost avoidance

We do not carry out this type of analysis

Other (please specify):

25. By whom are these assessments of the program effectiveness conducted?

Agency staff (internal)

Consultant (external)

Both internal and external

No assessments are performed

26. To whom does the program(s) need to demonstrate success? (Select all that apply).

Internal management (Utility CEO/manager, Board, Program manager, Chief financial officer/manager

External oversight committee

State agencies

We do not report the results of the program

Other (please specify):

96 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 27. What type of CII facility specific information does your utility collect during audits or through program participation applications? (Select all that apply).

Collected During Audit From Applications External Data Sources Not Collected

28. Does your utility use this additional customer information to develop metrics for benchmarking and/or evaluating program success rates?

Yes

We plan to develop benchmarks

Not sure

97 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 29. Does your utility use any external data sources on CII customers to assist in evaluating program success rates and/or benchmarking? (Select all that apply).

No external data sources about CII customers are used

Tax assessor records

Census data

Geospatial data

Third party business data

Building ratings (Energy Star, LEED, other)

Corporate efficiency/sustainability goals

Other (please specify):

30. Using the scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = “unimportant” and 5 = “critical”), please rate the importance of each Key Barrier to CII Program Participation as provided in the table below.

31. Please indicate how you think your utility's CII program could be improved? (Select all that apply).

Change type of incentive

Change value of incentive

Improve marketing / outreach strategies

Make simpler/streamline/less paperwork

Move to online submission of forms vs. paper

Additional examples/case studies demonstrating ROI and performance

Other (please specify):

32. What are the sources of information you use to improve your CII program? (Select all that apply).

Informal networking

Paid consultants

AWWA resources (e.g., manuals, journal, website)

Conferences (e.g., AWWA, WaterSmart Innovations)

Alliance for Water Efficiency resources

EPA WaterSense resources

Industry specific publications/organizations

Other (please specify):

Not enough funding

Not enough staff

CII use is not significant enough to warrant a program

Need information about how to establish and maintain a program

Other (please indicate):

Part D: Utility Profile

34. What type of services are provided by your utility (Select that apply)?

Water

Wastewater

Electricity

Natural gas

Solid waste

Storm water

35. Is the utility publicly or privately owned?

Publicly owned (by city/village, municipality, or cooperative entity)

Privately/investor owned

Other (please specify)

Retail

Both retail and wholesale

Wholesale only

37. What is the estimated population served by your utility?

Population in retail service area:

Population in wholesale service area (if applicable):

38. What is the number of retail service connections and the number of wholesale customers (if applicable) served by your utility? Residential retail service connections:

Nonresidential retail service connections:

Total retail service connections:

Total wholesale customers (if applicable):

39. What is your preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use?

(MGD)

(AFY)

I would prefer not to share water use information

Nonresidential retail volume (MGD):

Total retail volume (MGD):

Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (MGD):

41. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in AFY for 2014. Residential retail volume (AFY):

Nonresidential retail volume (AFY):

Total retail volume (AFY):

Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (AFY):

42. What is the estimated population served by your utility? Population in wholesale service area (if applicable):

43. What is the total number of wholesale customers served by your utility?

Number of wholesale customers:

44. Please indicate the total volume of water deliveries (treated and untreated) provided to your wholesale customers in 2014 (indicate in MGD or AFY).

Water Deliveries (MGD):

Water Deliveries (AFY):

45. Do you receive information on the number of retail service connections and/or wholesale customers and water deliveries provided by your wholesale customers (or member agencies)?

Yes

103 Copyright © 2016 American Water Works Association 46. What is the total number of retail service connections and wholesale customers served by your wholesale customers (or member agencies) in 2014? Total retail service connections:

Residential retail service connections (if provided):

Nonresidential retail service connections (if provided):

Total wholesale customers (if applicable):

47. What is your preferred unit of measurement for reporting water use?

(MGD)

(AFY)

I would prefer not to share water use information

48. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in MGD for 2014.

Residential retail volume (MGD):

Nonresidential retail volume (MGD):

Total retail volume (MGD):

Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (MGD):

49. Please indicate the total volume of retail and wholesale (if applicable) water deliveries in AFY for 2014.

Residential retail volume (AFY):

Nonresidential retail volume (AFY):

Total retail volume (AFY):

Total wholesale volume (treated and untreated, if applicable) (AFY):

AWWA

AWWA state/regional affiliate

Alliance for Water Efficiency

EPA WaterSense

Part E: Future Opportunities

51. Are there any comments you would like to make about CII water conservation/efficiency programs or about this survey? If so, please offer your comments below.

52. Would you be willing to participate in the follow-up research on CII water efficiency programs?

Yes

53. If you wish to receive a copy of the final report or participate in follow-up research on CII water efficiency programs, please provide your contact information below. Name and Position/Title

Utility Name

Address

Address 2

City/Town -- select state -- State/Province

ZIP/Postal Code

Email Address

Phone Number

Thank you!

Thank you for completing the survey. This survey was conducted by the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and Technologies Committee whose purpose is to facilitate information exchange, networking and partnerships on water efficient programs and technologies among water utilities, manufacturers, consultants and service providers, interest groups and regulatory agencies with respect to:

• Development, implementation and evaluation of water efficiency products, standards and water conservation BMPs/programs. • Evaluation of residential and nonresidential end-use technologies and methodologies for estimation of potential savings rates associated with efficiency improvements. • Origination, development and/or review of policy and issue papers on water efficiency and water conservation.

To learn how to become more involved in the AWWA Water Efficiency Programs and Technologies Committee, please contact Elizabeth Foster at [email protected].