Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Urban Water Demand Trends Conservation and the Future of Residential Water Use. Peter Mayer, P.E. [email protected]. www.a4we.org. www.waterdm.com. www.incentware.com. Water Demand Management: Why?. Water shortages Expensive to develop new supplies Climate change. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
www.waterdm.com
www.incentware.com
Urban Water Demand Trends
Conservation and the Future of Residential
Water UsePeter Mayer, [email protected]
www.a4we.org
Water Demand Management: Why?
• Water shortages• Expensive to develop new
supplies• Climate change
Demand Management = Serious Business
Drought @2050 vs Notorious Recent Historical Droughts
2040-2060
PDSI = Palmer Drought Severity Index
PDSI was developed by Wayne Palmer in the 1960s and uses temperature and rainfall information in a formula to determine dryness.
Source: Dr. Martin Hoerling, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
Greeley Colorado Historic Demand
0.000
2,000.000
4,000.000
6,000.000
8,000.000
10,000.000
12,000.000
1908
1913
1918
1923
1928
1933
1938
1943
1948
1953
1958
1963
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
City of Greeley Water Production (MGD)
Utilities are Asking: Where did the demand go?
In 2008 a typical household used ~ 12,000 gallons less than in 1978 (Coomes, P. et. al. 2010).
Significant demand reductions were observed prior to recession.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Aver
age
Annu
al P
er H
ouse
hold
Use
(kga
l)Avg. Per Household Use = 112.5 kgal/yearStandard Deviation = 11.4 kgal/year
City of Westminster, CO average annual household water use, 2000 – 2010, with trend line
Seattle Public Utilities - 1990
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Ann
ual A
vera
ge M
GD
Actual Demand
Forecast Without Conservation
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Ann
ual A
vera
ge M
GD
Actual Demand
Forecast WithoutConservation
Firm Yield in 2013
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Ann
ual A
vera
ge M
GD
Actual Demand
Current Firm Yield
Forecast WithoutConservation
Forecast With Conservation
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Ann
ual A
vera
ge M
GD
Actual Demand
Current Firm Yield
Forecast WithConservation
Forecast WithoutConservation
70+ Years
2013
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Ann
ual A
vera
ge M
GD
Actual Demand
Current Firm Yield
Forecast WithConservation
Forecast WithoutConservation
New Supply
70+ Years
A brief history of demand forecasting in Seattle
Seattle Saved $725 millionPV Cost of New Supply $800
MillionPV Cost of Conservation: $ 75
Million_______________________________________________________________
NPV : $725 Million
Avg. Annual Use Per SF Home (kgal)
Source: Mayer, P. et. al. 2013. Residential End Uses of Water Update. AWWA - ACE, Denver, CO.
1999 REUWS vs. 2014 REUWSgallons per household per day
2014 REUWS Update
62.256.2 53.9
47.2 45.7 44.8 44.4 44.5 44.2 44.0 43.6 39.0 35.6
Gal.
per c
apita
per
day
(gpc
d)
Indoor Gallons Per Capita Per DayNormalized for Household of 3
Homes Meeting Efficiency CriteriaToilet < 2 gal., Clothes washer <30 gal.
100%
41% 47% 43% 45% 48%
15%
100%
24%41% 48% 52% 56%
15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Perc
ent M
eetin
g Effi
cien
cy C
riter
ia
% Efficient Toilets % Efficient CWs
How much more conservation?
• A lot.• We’re almost…half way there!• New technology• Outdoor efficiency• WaterSense• Leak detection• Advanced metering• Conservation-oriented rates• Customer engagement through data and information
Future Trends• Technological change• Behavioral change• More intense and frequent drought• Water demand management at the
retail level
