2011 RETAIL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN

Transcription

1 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 2011 RETAIL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FINAL JUNE 2011 Prepared by RMC Water and Environment

2

3 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Enterprise Prepared By: June 2011

4 This page intentionally left blank.

5 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Conservation Planning... 1 Evaluation Process... 2 Conservation Program Savings and Cost-Effectiveness... 2 Retail Demand Projections... 4 Looking Forward... 6 Future Updates to the Retail Demand Model and the Conservation Plan INTRODUCTION... 7 Background... 7 Objectives of the 2011 Retail Water Conservation Plan CONSERVATION GOALS & PROGRESS Conservation Goals SFPUC Current Retail Conservation Program Conservation Program Investments and Savings to Date Market Saturation to Date CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Evaluation Process Qualitative Evaluation Process Single-Family Program Evaluation Multi-Family Program Evaluation Non-Residential Program Evaluation Quantitative Evaluation Process RETAIL DEMAND MODEL Model Overview and Summary of Updates Input Data and Key Assumptions Code and Ordinance Updates Conservation Program Specification Updates Model Calibration RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION PROGRAM Conservation Measures and Implementation Timeline Projected Savings from Measures Modeled Single-Family Residential Program Savings Multi-Family Residential Program Savings Non-Residential Program Savings Unit Costs of Water Savings Measures not Accounted for in the Model RETAIL DEMAND PROJECTIONS Baseline In-City Demand Adjusted Baseline In-City Demands In-City Demand with Codes and the SFPUC Conservation Program Total Retail Demand Projection PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING GOALS Future Updates to the Retail Demand Model and the Conservation Plan REFERENCES Page i

6 APPENDIX Appendix A: SFPUC Retail Demand Model Update and Calibration Technical Memorandum LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Updated BMP Structure and Description Table 2: Current Conservation Measures and Targeted Customer Sectors Table 3: Estimated Market Saturation within the SFPUC Retail Service Area (2010) Table 4: Primary Criteria for Qualitative Evaluation Table 5: Secondary Criteria for Qualitative Evaluation Table 6: Single Family Conservation Measures Evaluation Findings Table 7: Multi Family Conservation Measures Evaluation Findings Table 8: Non Residential Conservation Measures Evaluation Findings Table 9: Updates Made to the SFPUC Retail Demand Model Table 10: Updated San Francisco County Demographic Projections Table 11: Updated San Francisco Employment Projections Table 12: Model Calibration Results Table 13: Conservation Measures Evaluated by Model Table 14: Projected Annual and Cumulative Water Savings by Customer Sector Table 15: Single Family Conservation Measures Annual and Cumulative Water Savings Projection Table 16: Multi Family Conservation Measures Annual and Cumulative Water Savings Projection Table 17: Non Residential Conservation Measures Annual & Cumulative Water Savings Projection Table 18: Unit Costs by Conservation Measure and Customer Sector Table 19: SFPUC In City Retail Demand Projections (mgd) Table 20: San Francisco Retail Water Demands Summary LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Water System Map... 8 Figure 2: Conservation Plan Update Process... 9 Figure 3: Estimated Annual Water Savings ( ) Figure 4: Cumulative Conservation Program Savings ( ) Figure 5: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Evaluation Step) Figure 6: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Model Updates) Figure 7: Updated San Francisco Demographic Projection Figure 8: Updated San Francisco Employment Projection Figure 9: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Savings & Unit Cost Projections) Figure 10: Estimated Water Savings by Consumer Sector Figure 11: Single Family Conservation Measures Annual Water Savings Projection Figure 12: Single Family Conservation Measures Cumulative Water Savings Projection Figure 13: Multi Family Conservation Program Projected Annual Water Savings Figure 14: Cumulative Savings for Multi Family Residential Programs Figure 15: Non Residential Conservation Measures Annual Water Savings Projection Figure 16: Non Residential Conservation Measures Cumulative Water Savings Projection Figure 17: Conservation Measure Unit Costs Figure 18: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Retail Demand Projections) Figure 19: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Goals) Page ii

7 List of Acronyms & Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments AF acre feet AWMP Advanced Water Meter Program BMP Best Management Practice Cal Green California Green Building Standards Code CEC California Energy Commission CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency CII commercial, industrial and institutional City City and County of San Francisco CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council DWR The Department of Water Resources FY fiscal year GED gallons per employee day gpcd gallons per capita per day gpf gallons per flush gpm gallons per minute HET high efficiency toilet MFR multi family residential mgd million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding NR non residential ROR Retrofit on Resale (Residential Water Conservation Ordinance) RWS Regional Water System SB Senate Bill SB X7 7 Senate Bill X7 7 Water Conservation Act of 2009 SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SFE San Francisco Department of Environment SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SFR single family residential ULFT ultra low flow toilet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WF Water Factor WSIP Water System Improvement Program Page iii

8 This page intentionally left blank.

9 2011 Retail Water Conservationn Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), a department within the City and County of San Francisco (City), has been implementing conservation activities for over 20 years to help ensure that future water demands can be supported. The SFPUC s conservation program is shaped by the California Urban Water Conservation Council s (CUWCC) Best Management Practices; state requirements for water efficient landscaping and per capita water reductions, and San Francisco s cutting-edge green building and environmental directives. The SFPUC s commitmentt to reduce the amount of water imported and develop sustainable local supplies, has led to a specific goal to conserve 4 million gallons per day (mgd) by The SFPUC s conservation program currently provides incentives, services, education, and assistance with legislation to reduce water use in San Francisco and among retail water customers outside the City. Incentives include high-efficiency toilets, urinals, and clothes washer rebates; free toilets and installation for low-income customers; discounts for graywater systems; grants for large landscape upgrades; and free devices such as aerators and showerheads. Services include comprehensive indoor/outdoor conservation surveys, plan review for large projects, assistance with school programs and a community demonstration garden, free landscaping classes, and other efforts. The SFPUC also provides a bill adjustment program for leak repair, and anticipates providing customers real-time conservation information after conversion to automated meters. Conservation Planning In 2004, the SFPUC conducted a detailed cost-benefit analysis to identify the most feasible and effective water conservationn measures to pursue in the future. As part of the analysis, the SFPUC developed a Retail Demand Model (model) to estimate savings, demand reduction, and unit cost for each measure. Three conservation program options were evaluated, and the SFPUC selected a conservation goal based on the most ambitious of these options, which identified an estimated 4 mgd of potential retail water savings through the SFPUC-initiated conservation measures by Details of the analysis are documented in the report City and County of San Francisco 2004 Retail Water Demands and Conservation Potential (2004 Report). In 2010, the SFPUC began efforts to update the 2004 Report and the model to: 1. Conduct a qualitative evaluation of the SFPUC s current conservation measures and new measures considered for implementation. 2. Update the model with new demographic and employment data, new ordinances and building codes, refine the assumptions used in the model, and include new measures selected from the qualitative evaluation. Also calibrate the model against historical data from 2000 and Estimate potential water savings and cost-effectiveness of the selected measures. The forecast period starts in 2005, and runs through Assess the water saving potentials for each water customer sector (single-family residential, multi-family residential and non-residential). 1 The 4 mgd of water savings refers to active water savings achieved by the SFPUC s conservation program. This does not include code- driven savings achieved by changes in federal and state plumbing codes and regulatory standards. Page 1

10 5. Develop projections of the City s retail water demands through The process includes: a. Estimate the in-city 2 retail water demands baseline through 2035 b. Project water saving potentials through 2035 due to changes in plumbing codes c. Project water saving potentials through 2035 due to changes in plumbing codes and implementation of selected conservation measures This 2011 Retail Water Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan) documents and summarizes the review findings of the qualitative evaluation, results from the model (the model s forecast period is between 2005 and 2035), and the regulatory framework that drive conservation. It also presents a comprehensive summary of the SFPUC s conservation goals for the retail service area and progress made to date, and sets forth a roadmap for implementing the SFPUC s retail conservation program through Evaluation Process A qualitative evaluation was conducted of the SFPUC s conservation measures, which includes measures recommended in the 2004 Report, new measures implemented since 2004, and new measures considered for implementation. A total of 57 conservation measures were evaluated. The SFPUC selected 33 measures to be included in the updated model. The model uses population data, employment data, each measure s estimated annual activity level 3 and implementation cost 4 to calculate for their water savings and cost-effectiveness. All conservation measures are assumed to operate through 2035 with the exception of some single-family residential and non-residential measures, which end before 2035 because full market penetration is expected to be realized. Conservation Program Savings and Cost-Effectiveness Key results from the model are summarized in Table ES-1 and Table ES-2. Table ES-1 shows the annual water savings projected to be achieved by the 33 measures in two key years: 2018 and The year 2018 is the year that the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) has set the goal of achieving up to 4 mgd of water savings through the SFPUC s conservation program. The year 2035 is the end of the model s forecast period. Table ES-2 shows the cumulative water savings 5 projected to be achieved by the implementation of the 33 measures from 2005 (the beginning of the model forecast period) to 2035 (the end of the model forecast period). It also shows the estimated implementation costs and unit costs of the conservation program. 2 In-City retail water demand refers to the water use by customers located within the corporate boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco. The SFPUC also provides water to some customers (e.g. San Francisco International Airport, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, etc.) located outside of the corporate boundaries. For the purposes of water billing and accounting these customers are also considered as SFPUC s retail customers. Water demands of these customers are referred to as Other retail water demand in this document. The SFPUC s Total retail water demand refers to the in-city retail water demand plus other retail water demand. 3 Annual activity level refers to the amount of participation in a conservation measure. For example, for a clothes washer rebate measure, the activity level is the number of rebates that the SFPUC expects to issue in a given year. For most measures, annual activity level is set at the same amount per year; these estimates are most precise for current and near-term years ( ); beyond these years, it is difficult to estimate actual activity levels precisely and levels are likely to shift among measures. 4 Implementation cost refers to the sum of (1) utility cost (sometimes referred to as material cost, such as the cost of a toilet for a free toilet program), (2) administrative cost, and (3) consultant cost. 5 Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. Page 2

11 Table ES-1: Conservation Program Annual Water Savings Customer Sector Annual Water Savings (1) Annual Water Savings (1) Single-Family Residential 2.0 mgd 1.8 mgd Multi-Family Residential 1.6 mgd 2.2 mgd Non-Residential 1.4 mgd 2.0 mgd Total: 5.0 mgd 6.0 mgd Note: (1) Mgd: million gallons per day. Mgd is a unit used to express a rate of water savings over a specified period of time. Single-family residential sector is projected to achieve 2.0 mgd of savings in 2018, but the savings declines to 1.8 mgd in Two factors contributed to such decline. First, some of the single-family conservation measures end earlier than 2035 because they run out of fixtures to replace and second, over time the amount of active savings from these measures decreases as more water savings are attributed to codes. The total estimated savings from codes plus active conservation increases over the forecast period; however, less of the total savings is credited to active conservation over time. Moving forward, the SFPUC plans to expand measures that focus on the multi-family residential and non-residential sectors and anticipates market opportunity in these sectors. Estimated multi-family sector s annual water savings are expected to increase from 1.6 mgd in 2018 to 2.2 mgd in 2035; non-residential sector s annual water savings are expected to increase from 1.4 mgd in 2018 to 2.0 mgd by Some of the conservation measures for the multi-family and non-residential sectors are relatively new or have not yet launched. Estimates of their activity levels are generally conservative and are based on what might be expected for initial participation. It is anticipated that participation will increase over time with marketing, and water savings in these two sectors could be more than what is currently estimated by the model. Table ES-2: Conservation Program Cumulative Water Savings and Unit Costs Customer Sector Cumulative Savings (1) Present Value Cost (2) (AF) (3) ($1,000) Unit Cost ($/AF) Single-Family 66,943 AF (35%) $49,182 $1,009/AF Multi-Family 65,960 AF (34%) $27,579 $609/AF Non-Residential 60,785 AF (31%) $42,217 $952/AF Total (4) : 193,689 AF $118,978 $860/AF Notes: (1) Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. (2) Present value is a typical measurement to show the total cost in 2005 dollars, which is the beginning of the model. (3) AF: acre foot. 1 AF is equivalent to 325,851 gallons (or million gallons). AF is a unit used to express a volume of water, such as the total or cumulative savings over a period of time. (4) Sums may show a difference of one (1) AF due to rounding. Page 3

12 Together, the 33 measures evaluated in the model have the potential to cumulatively save a total of 193,689 acre feet (AF) of water. 6 Historically, the SFPUC focused on conservation measures geared toward the single-family residential sector. Many of these measures have been implemented for a long time and have high visibility and participation. As such, the model projects continued high participation and associated high water savings, accounting for about 35 percent of the total savings from all sectors. Over the 30-year planning horizon (2005 to 2035), if conservation measures were conducted at the activity levels currently modeled, the SFPUC would invest a total of approximately $119 million in conservation program implementation. In general, this represents an estimated annual expenditure of $4 million to $7 million to achieve the level of conservation savings projected in the model. Based on each measure s water savings and implementation cost, the model calculated the unit cost (cost per acre foot of water saved, or $/AF) for each measure, which is an indication of costeffectiveness. The average unit cost across all measures is $860/AF. The unit cost results suggest that conservation measures targeted at the multi-family sector are relatively more cost-effective than the single-family and non-residential sectors. This is generally due to the fact that toilet replacements can be done in bulk at multi-family buildings, which reduces the cost per unit. Similarly, clothes washers installed in common areas of apartment buildings generally get more uses per machine, yielding more savings per machine. The average unit cost for nonresidential sector is higher than the other two sectors because it includes incentives for large landscape and other indoor retrofits that are considerably more expensive than basic plumbing fixture replacements. Retail Demand Projections The City s total retail water demand has declined by over one-third since 1965 despite continuous population growth. Several factors contributed to this decline, such as the two severe droughts in and , and the changes in the composition of industrial production in the City. The decline is also attributed to the SFPUC s effort in promoting the efficient and appropriate use of water. Figure ES-1 shows the historical and forecasted total retail water demands. Through the implementation of conservation measures and changes in plumbing codes, the total retail demand is expected to remain at approximately 80 mgd through Details of the forecasted demands are shown in Table ES-3. 6 Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. Page 4

13 Figure ES-1: Total Retail Demand Trend (1965 to 2035) 140 Total Retail Water Demand (MGD) Drought Drought Historical Demand Total Retail Demand in millions of gallons per day (mgd). Includes in City customers and other retail customers. Forecasted Demand Table ES-3: Total Retail Demand Forecast with Codes and Conservation Savings (2010 to 2035) Water Use Entity 2010 (mgd) 2015 (mgd) 2020 (mgd) 2025 (mgd) 2030 (mgd) 2035 (mgd) In-City Demands (with plumbing codes and conservation) (1) Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Non Residential Other In-City Demands (2) Losses Subtotal (3) : 76.4 (4) Other Retail Demands Other Retail Customers (5) Lawrence Livermore Lab Groveland CSD City Irrigation Uses (6) Castlewood Community (7) Subtotal (3) : Total Retail Demand (3) : Notes: (1) In-City demands shown in this table are projections generated by the Retail Demand Model. Projections are based on the scenario that takes into consideration the estimated savings due to both plumbing codes and the SFPUC-initiated conservation measures. See Table 12 for actual water use in 2010 and how it compares to modeled water uses. (2) Other in-city Demands consist of demands from the Builders and Contractors (B&S) and Docks & Shipping (D&S) customer accounts. A demand of 0.2 mgd is estimated based on historical water use. (3) Sums may show a difference of 0.1 mgd due to rounding. (4) The actual in-city demand in fiscal year was 71.4 mgd. (5) Other Retail Customers refer to the US Navy, San Francisco International Airport, and other suburban or municipal accounts. This does not include groundwater at Sunol and Castlewood. Demands are based on average use from 2000 to (6) Irrigation at Golden Gate Park, Great Highway Median, and San Francisco Zoo. (7) 100 percent of Castlewood demand (0.4 mgd) and 75 percent of Sunol Golf course demand (0.3 mgd) is served by groundwater in Sunol. Projected demands are based on average use from 2000 to 2010 and remain unchanged over the planning horizon. Page 5

14 2011 Retail Water Conservationn Plan Looking Forward Between 2005 and 2010, the model estimated that the SFPUC s conservation program has achieved a total of 1. 4 mgd in retail water savings. Moving forward, the SFPUC remains committed to implementing conservation program as an important component of its water supply portfolio, and will continue its efforts to encourage retail water savings through conservationn and water efficiency. Table ES-4 presents a snapshot of the SFPUC s progress toward meeting the broader goals that shape its retail conservation program. Table ES-4: Conservation Goals and Progress Conservation Goal Progress Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) Achievee up to 4 mgd of active water As shown in Table ES-1, conservationn measures are savings within San Francisco throughh projected to achieve a water savings of 5.0 mgd by 2018 conservation measures, and 6 mgd and 6.0 mgd by Therefore, the SFPUC is on track from recycled water and groundwater with meeting, and potentially exceeding, its WSIP goal. by CUWCC Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation Implement conservation program according to the terms set forth in the MOU and comply with BMP requirements by The SFPUC is in the process of compiling data for its fiscal year (FY) and FY BMP Compliance Report, and expects that it will be in compliance with BMP requirements. Senate Bill X7-7 Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) Reduce per capita water use to below San Francisco s baseline per capita water use is gallons per capita per day gpcd (1), well below both the 2015 and 2020 targets of (gpcd) by 2015 and gpcd by and gpcd, respectively; therefore, the SFPUC is already in compliance with the SB X7-7 requirements. The Retail Demand Model also estimates continued water savingss from conservation and projects a steady decline in per capita water use through Note: (1) The baseline per capita water use is the average retail per capita use of the 10-year period from FY to FY Detailed calculation is documented in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Future Updates to the Retail Demand Model and the Conservation Plan The level of funding, resources, and public participation for each conservation measure will change over time. As such, this Conservation Plan is intendedd to serve as a broad guidance document that will inform development of annual action plans; and identify staffing, resource, and budget needs. Recommendations contained herein will be revisited and adapted as needed to meet the SFPUC s needs and to ensure that its conservation goals are met. On an annual or more frequent basis, the SFPUC plans to review the model results against actual program activity to update water savings, costs, and demand projections. The SFPUC will also conduct major review and updates to the model and the Conservation Plan every five years, coinciding with its Urban Water Management Plan development. Page 6

15 1. INTRODUCTION The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), a department within the City and County of San Francisco (City), has been implementing conservation program for almost 20 years to help ensure that future water demands can be supported. This 2011 Retail Water Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan) presents a comprehensive summary of the SFPUC s conservation goals for the retail service area and progress made to date. It also presents the results of an evaluation of various measures to ensure these goals are met, and sets forth the plan for implementing the SFPUC s retail conservation program through This Conservation Plan is organized as follows: Section 1 (This section) provides a summary of background information, discusses the need for preparing this Conservation Plan, and outlines the update process. Section 2 presents the SFPUC s retail conservation goals and provides a summary of the program achievements and investments status to date. Section 3 discusses the approach taken to evaluate the existing retail conservation program and documents the various changes recommended to optimize the program moving forward. Section 4 provides an overview of the SFPUC s Retail Demand Model and describes the process by which this model was updated. Section 5 presents the recommended retail conservation program, model results, projected program savings and costs. Section 6 presents the projected total retail demands through Section 7 presents the progress made toward meeting the goals outlined in Section 2. Section 8 presents the references for this Conservation Plan. Background The SFPUC s Regional Water System delivers water to 2.5 million residential, commercial and industrial customers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Approximately one-third of this water is delivered to retail customers in San Francisco while two-thirds is provided through wholesale deliveries to 27 suburban agencies in Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. The SFPUC s water system conveys water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park and other local watersheds to the San Francisco Bay Area. Figure 1 illustrates the regional water system and service area. Effective conservation is an important element of the SFPUC s overall water supply strategy for ensuring a reliable and sustainable delivery of water to its customers. In 2004, the SFPUC conducted a detailed cost-benefit analysis to identify the most feasible and effective water conservation measures to pursue in the future. As part of the analysis, the SFPUC also developed a Retail Demand Model (model) to estimate conservation savings, resulting demand reductions and unit costs for each measure. A total of 48 conservation measures were identified and evaluated for savings potential, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of implementation. Three conservation program options were evaluated, and the SFPUC selected a conservation goal based on the most ambitious of these options, which identified an estimated four (4) million gallons per day (mgd) of potential retail water savings through the SFPUC-initiated conservation measures by Detail of the analysis is documented in the report City and County of San Francisco 2004 Retail Water Demands and Conservation Potential (2004 Report). Page 7

16 Figure 1: Regional Water System Map Page 8

17 Objectives of the 2011 Retail Water Conservation Plan In 2010, the SFPUC began efforts to update the 2004 Report and the model. The need to update the report and model was driven by several factors: New Data - The population, housing, and employment forecasts used in the 2004 Report and the 2004 model were replaced with newer forecasts; New Regulations - Since completion of the 2004 Report, several new conservation codes and ordinances impacting retail water demands have been enacted and needed to be incorporated; and Adaptive Management - The conservation measures (including savings, costs, and activity levels) needed to be updated and to reflect actual findings of the SFPUC staff responsible for implementing the recommended conservation measures, and to include new conservation measures implemented since The objectives of updating the 2004 Report and the model are: 1. Conduct qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the SFPUC s current conservation measures and new measures considered for implementation. 2. Update the model with new demographic and employment data, refine the assumptions used in the model, and also include new measures selected from the qualitative evaluation. Calibrate the model against historical data from 2000 and Estimate potential water savings and cost-effectiveness associated with implementing the selected measures. 4. Assess the water saving potentials for each water customer sector (single-family residential, multi-family residential and non-residential). 5. Develop projections of the City s retail water demand through The process includes: a. Estimate the in-city retail water demand baseline through 2035 b. Project water saving potentials through 2035 due to changes in plumbing codes c. Project water saving potentials through 2035 due to changes in plumbing codes and implementation of selected conservation measures The process is illustrated in Figure 2 and explained below. Figure 2: Conservation Plan Update Process Qualitative & Quantitative Evaluations Model Updates Savings & Unit Cost Projections Data Collection Calibration Stakeholder Input Refine Analysis Results Retail Demand Projections Conservation Plan Update Page 9

18 1. Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluations of Conservation Measures. Evaluated conservation measures in terms of effectiveness, user feedback, costs, and other criteria. 2. Data Collection. Compiled and validated historic water billing data, and historic and projected demographic data. 3. Update Model Inputs and Assumptions. Updated model input such as demographic data, implementation costs, inflation rate, etc., and also updated the model structure to make water savings calculations more transparent. 4. Calibrate the Model. Calibrated the model to actual demands in 2000 and The updated model is within about 2 percent of actual retail demand in 2000 and within about one (1) percent of actual retail demand in Develop Preliminary Analysis. Generated preliminary water savings and cost-effectiveness projections for the forecast period, which begins in 2005 and ends in Obtain Stakeholder Input. Presented preliminary model findings at the Citizen s Advisory Committee in February 2011, and solicited comments at the meeting. 7. Refine Model and Finalize Results. Updated and refined model input to extend the forecast period to 2035 (the original model s forecast period ends in 2030) to support the SFPUC s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) development, and generated conservation cost and savings estimates. 8. Update Conservation Plan. Documented and summarized the model findings, along with the SFPUC staff s qualitative assessment of past conservation activity and future needs in this Conservation Plan. It should be noted that the Conservation Plan is intended to serve as a living document that will be updated every five years along with the model and the UWMP. In the meantime, the SFPUC expects to draw on the model results and use additional tools to evaluate and report conservation activities on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Recommendations contained herein will be revisited and adapted as needed to meet the needs of the SFPUC and ensure that its conservation goals are met. Page 10

19 2. CONSERVATION GOALS & PROGRESS This section describes the specific conservation goals that the SFPUC is committed to achieving through implementation of its retail conservation program, the progress made to date, and the general focus of the conservation program moving forward. Conservation Goals The framework of the SFPUC s conservation program is guided by goals established in the following: Water System Improvement Program California Urban Water Conservation Council Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation Senate Bill X7-7 Water Conservation Act of 2009 The conservation program is also shaped by requirements of local legislation and building codes including, but not limited to, San Francisco s water efficient irrigation ordinance, residential and commercial conservation ordinances guiding indoor water use, water efficiency requirements for municipal buildings, and others. Assessments of the saturation of conservation measures among customer sectors and anticipated remaining market potential also influence the conservation program. Water System Improvement Program Built in the early to mid-1900s, many parts of the SFPUC s regional water system are nearing the end of their working life, with crucial portions crossing over or near to three major earthquake faults. In 2002, the SFPUC launched the $4.6 billion Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) to repair, replace, and seismically upgrade the system s deteriorating pipelines, tunnels, reservoirs, pump stations, storage tanks, and dams. To ensure that future water needs will be met in a more reliable and sustainable manner, the SFPUC has undertaken the implementation of more than 80 projects set forth by the WSIP. Moving forward, the SFPUC s conservation programs will be guided by commitments through WSIP to reduce the sale of water imported from the Tuolumne River. Specifically, the SFPUC has committed to reducing imported water supplies to its retail service area by 10 mgd by This reduction will be achieved through the implementation of local water supplies, including groundwater, recycled water and conservation projects. Approximately 4 mgd of the required imported water supply reduction is anticipated to come from the SFPUC-initiated conservation measures. Best Management Practices Compliance The SFPUC is one of the original signatories to the California Urban Water Conservation Council s (CUWCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Urban Water Conservation, a voluntary agreement to implement water conservation programs. Since 1991, the SFPUC s Water Conservation Program has been structured around the list of 14 Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in that MOU. For each of the 14 BMPs, there are specific compliance criteria for implementation that need to be met. The MOU provides a variety of options by which an agency can achieve compliance. The CUWCC recently amended the MOU in The amendment re-organized the 14 BMPs into five categories and offered its signatories more flexible options in meeting the BMP requirements. The new BMP structure and compliance options reflect the evolutionary nature of water conservation measures as Page 11

20 new implementation strategies are developed and new plumbing codes and technology advancements take place. Table 1 summarizes the re-structured BMPs. Presently, the SFPUC is compiling data for its FY and FY BMP Compliance Report, and expects to be in compliance with all BMP requirements. In addition to the measures that correspond to the MOU, the SFPUC has also launched many measures that encourage water savings above and beyond those required in the MOU. Details of the conservation measures and the corresponding water saving projections can be found in the SFPUC Water Conservation Report Table 1: Updated BMP Structure and Description BMP Categories (1) BMP # BMP Description F-Operations Conservation Coordinator F-Operations Water Waste Prohibition F-Operations 1.2 Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections F-Operations 1.3 Water Loss Control F-Operations 1.4 Retail Conservation Pricing F-Education 2.1 Public Information Programs F-Education 2.2 School Education Programs P-Residential 3.1 Residential Assistance Program: Residential plumbing retrofit and water survey programs for SFR and MFR customers 2 P-Residential 3.2 Landscape Water Survey: Water survey programs for SFR and MFR customers P-Residential 3.3 High-Efficiency Clothes Washing Machine Financial Incentive Programs P-Residential 3.4 WaterSense Specification toilets, Residential Ultra Low Flow Toilet (ULFT) Replacement Programs P-CII 4 Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Accounts P-Landscape 5 Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives Notes: (1) F: Foundational BMPs; P: Programmatic BMP. Foundational BMPs are considered to be essential water conservation activities by any utility and are adopted for implementation by all signatories to the MOU as ongoing practices with no time limits. Implementation of programmatic BMPs is governed by local cost-effectiveness. (2) SFR: Single-Family Residential; MFR: Multi-Family Residential. Senate Bill X7-7 Water Conservation Act of 2009 The Senate Bill X7-7 Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) calls for a 20 percent reduction in statewide per capita water use by The bill places the 20 percent reduction goal in statute, and establishes the process to identify the savings that need to be achieved. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed detailed methodologies to assist water agencies in calculating their water use baseline, and also developed four methods for calculating the water use target. Depending on individual water agency s data availability, water supply portfolio, and political constraints, a water agency can elect to use any one of the four methods in calculating a local target, or 7 The SFPUC Water Conservation Report is available online at Page 12

21 opt to join a regional entity to establish a regional target. All water agencies are required to report their baseline water use and targets in their 2010 UWMP, and report compliance status in the subsequent UWMPs (2015 and 2020). In preparing its 2010 UWMP, the SFPUC analyzed its historical billing data for the past ten years and calculated its baseline water use according to the DWR methodologies. Its baseline water use is 98.4 gpcd. The SFPUC then reviewed the data requirements and applicability of the four methods for calculating the water use targets, and elected to use Method 3. Method 3 requires a water agency to set its water use target at no more than 95 percent of the target set for its hydrological region. The SFPUC retail system is contained entirely within the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region. The region s interim and 2020 targets are 144 and 131 gpcd, respectively. According to Method 3, 95 percent of the region s targets are calculated, yielding interim and final targets of and gpcd, respectively. As noted earlier, the SFPUC s baseline water use is 98.4 gpcd. This is below both the interim and final urban water use targets. Therefore, the SFPUC is already in compliance with the SB X7-7 requirements. Details and methodology for calculating the baseline and target water use are documented in the SFPUC s 2010 UWMP. As evidenced in the earlier discussions, the SFPUC has made significant achievements in conservation and has met or is on track to meeting its water reduction goals. San Francisco also has one of the lowest per capita water use rates in California, due mainly to less outdoor irrigation, high housing densities and a cool climate. Even so, the SFPUC s model projects a continued decline in per capita through 2020 based on estimated water savings from continued conservation. Moving forward, the SFPUC remains committed to implementing conservation as an important component of its water supply portfolio, and will continue its efforts to encourage retail water savings through conservation. SFPUC Current Retail Conservation Program The SPFUC has been implementing water conservation activities for over 20 years and has implemented measures aimed at reducing both indoor and outdoor water use in all customer sectors. Some of the measures being implemented are per the program option ( Package C ) recommended in the 2004 Report, and some were added later in response to new technologies and water use trends. Overall, the SFPUC is currently implementing most of the conservation measures included in the updated model (see Table 13 for a summary of all modeled measures). The model also includes several measures the SFPUC has not yet started but anticipates implementing in the future. The actual number and mix of conservation measures undertaken may vary from year to year and depends on available funding and resources. In general, the SFPUC s retail conservation program can be divided into the following categories: Single-Family Residential (SFR) Measures. These measures aim at reducing the water use of single-family homes in the City. Because of the highly urbanized setting of the City, indoor water uses account for the majority of residential water use. Approximately 10 percent or less of residential water is used for outdoor irrigation. As such, the SFPUC s single-family conservation measures primarily focus on encouraging indoor water savings through replacement of outdated plumbing fixtures with higher efficiency fixtures. Multi-Family Residential (MFR) Measures. These measures aim at reducing the water use of multi-family properties such as apartment buildings in the City. Multi-family units comprise of almost two-thirds of the City s housing stock, and their numbers are projected to continue to increase in the future. The SFPUC has recently expanded and launched measures targeted specifically at reducing the water use of this sector, and will continue to grow the measure s coverage in order to capture this sector s cost effective water saving potential. Page 13

22 Non-Residential (NR) Measures. These measures aim at reducing the water use of nonresidential properties in the City, sometimes referred to as the Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial (CII) sector. This sector includes, among other uses, San Francisco s municipal facilities and City parks, universities, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, food and beverage processing companies, and others. Water use in this sector is mainly driven by the nature of the business, and some (such as parks) can have significant outdoor water use. In addition to the sector-specific measures, the SFPUC also established ongoing partnerships with schools and community groups for its public information and educations measures. These measures are essential to promoting the efficient use of water. The measures that the SFPUC is currently (as of 2011) implementing are shown in Table 2. Details of these measures can be found in the SFPUC Water Conservation Report Table 2: Current Conservation Measures and Targeted Customer Sectors Conservation Measures SFR Indoor SFR Outdoor MFR Indoor MFR Outdoor NR Indoor NR Outdoor Water Wise Evaluations/Audits Water Wise Tenant Kits HET (1) Rebate HET Direct Install HET Voucher High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Free Fixtures and Devices High Efficiency Urinal Rebate Green Business Toilet Recycling CII Large Innovative Retrofit Incentives Institutional Partnerships Large Landscape Grant Public Information Education Garden for the Environment Partnership Graywater Laundry to Landscape Pilot Low-Flow Sprayer Distribution (2) Note: (1) HET: High efficiency toilets. Refers to toilets that use 1.28 gallons per flush or less. (2) One- to two-unit residential buildings only. 8 The SFPUC Water Conservation Report is available online at Page 14

23 Highlights from the last three years (2007 to 2010) include the following accomplishments: Residential Measures: Conducted more than 2,100 residential water wise evaluations Provided over 3,350 conservation kits to tenants Issued over 500 ultra-low flow toilet (ULFT) 9 and 5,800 high-efficiency toilet (HET) 10 rebates Issued over 13,100 high-efficiency washing machine rebates Installed over 1,600 HETs for low-income households Distributed nearly 100,000 free conservation devices Non-Residential Measures: Conducted more than 400 commercial water wise evaluations Issued over 3,800 HET rebates and over 200 high efficiency urinal rebates Issued over 250 commercial clothes washer rebates Launched and completed the Water Savers Pilot Program Conducted conservation audits at nine schools Conducted conservation audits for over 60 municipal buildings Conservation Program Investments and Savings to Date Since 1991, the SFPUC has invested significantly toward implementing its retail conservation program, with over $2 million a year for the last four years. The operating budget for FY is $7 million, which includes staff and overhead costs. A similar level of investment is anticipated for the near future. Although it is not possible to quantify direct savings from all of the conservation measures that the SFPUC is involved in (e.g., public information and educational outreach), the SFPUC has been tracking the amount of water saved through implementation of its active water conservation measures, as well as the savings achieved through implementation of local codes that include federal and state-mandated standards for water efficiency. In addition to active conservation measures, the SFPUC also invested resources and funding in implementing and promoting local plumbing code updates and ordinances. Since 2005, it is estimated that the SFPUC has saved a total cumulative savings of 28,242 acre feet (AF), with 4,361 AF of this resulting from specific conservation measures evaluated in the model and 23,881 AF of this in savings due to changes in regulations and codes. Additional water savings are assumed for some of the conservation activities not evaluated in the model, as well as for activities implemented between 1991 and Figure 3 shows the estimated annual water savings from plumbing codes and active conservation measures between 2006 and 2010, and Figure 4 shows the cumulative water savings during the same period for the different types of conservation measures that the SFPUC has implemented. 9 Ultra low flow toilet refers to a toilet that uses 1.6 gpf or less. 10 High-efficiency toilet refers to a toilet that uses 1.28 gpf or less. Page 15

24 Figure 3: Estimated Annual Water Savings ( ) Annual Water Savings (AF/Yr) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Multi Family Residential Savings Single Family Residential Savings Non Residential Savings Savings from Plumbing Codes & Regulations Water savings from federaland state plumbing codes and reguations are referred to as "passive water savings", and do not contribute toward the 4 mgd goal established in the WSIP. Nevertheless, the SFPUC has invested significant resources and funding in implementing and promoting these codes and regulations, achiving an estimated cumulative savings of 23,881AF since Figure 4: Cumulative Conservation Program Savings ( ) Residential Washers CII Washers Residential Toilets CII Audits CII Toilets CII Landscape Residential Showerheads Note: Residential surveys support plumbing fixture rebate programs. Savings mostly included in those programs. CII Spray Valves Residential Surveys ,000 1,200 Cumulative Water Savings in AF: Market Saturation to Date With over 20 years of conservation program history, it is important to understand the current market saturation for various conservation measures within the SFPUC retail service area to quantify future conservation savings potential, and determine where to focus future conservation program efforts. Market saturation percentages are estimated by the SFPUC s model. The model starts with an assumed level of saturation in 2005 and then re-computes saturation in each forecast year based on fixture replacement due to code requirements and the SFPUC s conservation measures. Table 3 shows the 2010 estimates of market saturation for high efficiency fixtures within the retail service area. The inventory assumptions that provide the basis for calculations are based on the review of BMP reports documenting conservation activity since 1999, and the most recently available single-family residential end use study that included San Francisco. Page 16

25 Table 3: Estimated Market Saturation within the SFPUC Retail Service Area (2010) Fixtures Estimated Market Saturation (2010) Single-Family Multi-Family CII High-Efficiency Washers 42% 25% (1) 49% Toilets (2) 58% 53% 47% Low-Flow Showerheads (2.5 gpm) (3) 90% 90% n/a High-Efficiency Showerheads (1.5 gpm) (3) 5% 0% n/a Notes: (1) Includes common area washers only. (2) Both ULFTs and HETs. (3) The SFPUC s 2007/2008 BMP Report estimates 90 percent saturation for low-flow showerhead (<2.5 gpm), which currently meet state code requirements; however there is significant remaining potential for moving the market toward even higher efficiency showerheads (1.5 gpm). As shown, the SFPUC has made significant progress toward installation of high-efficiency toilets, tank style in particular, (approximately 50 percent saturation overall and per the SFPUC s toilet direct install measure data, between 60 and 70 percent saturation homes of low-income customers on the SFPUC s rate assistance program) and high-efficiency washers (between 25 and 50 percent saturation) within its retail service area. Data shows a lower saturation of efficient urinals and flushometer valve toilets. Tank-style toilets are generally used in residential properties and some commercial and institutional facilities; urinals and flushometer valve toilets are mainly found in commercial and institutional properties. The SFPUC will be adjusting the marketing and incentive levels for different toilet and urinal types to help increase saturation where less progress has been made. Page 17

26 This page intentionally left blank. Page 18

27 3. CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION This section describes the approach taken to evaluate the conservation measures recommended as part of the 2004 Report. This is the first step in the analysis process, as highlighted in Figure 5. Figure 5: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Evaluation Step) Qualitative & Quantitative Evaluations Model Updates Savings & Unit Cost Projections Data Collection Calibration Goals, Progress, Future Actions Retail Demand Projections Program Evaluation Process The SFPUC staff continuously works to optimize the conservation program by reviewing and modifying measures. In addition to the ongoing adaptive management approach to the program, a more formal review of the conservation program portfolio was conducted in This formal review consisted of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation processes to review current conservation measures and feed information into the model update. Additionally, the formal review process considered how to optimize the SFPUC s measures based on the SFPUC s findings, as well as findings from other large conservation measures from across the state. Qualitative Evaluation Process A qualitative evaluation was conducted of the SFPUC s current conservation measures, which include measures recommended in the 2004 Report and new measures implemented since In order to determine the level of potential performance for each measure, it was first necessary to define the elements of success. A high-level assessment of the conservation measures was conducted based on selected criteria determined as major elements of success for measures with quantifiable water savings. These criteria are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Primary Criteria for Qualitative Evaluation # Primary Criteria Elements of Success 1 Cost effectively avoided water purchases 2 Local market opportunities 3 Lifetime water savings potential 4 Certainty of water savings 5 Customer receptivity The measure provides economical water savings. The measure has significant potential within the SFPUC s service territory. The measure yields a high volume of water savings over the measure life. The measures are tried and true that have proven savings. Customers respond well to the measure and give high customer satisfaction marks for the service or products provided. Page 19

28 # Primary Criteria Elements of Success 6 Ease of operation 7 Drives market transformation The measure is not burdensome for the SFPUC to operate. The measure helps to forge the way into a specific market (such as landscape) so that vendors offer water use efficiency measures and customers make water use efficiency upgrades on their own. Other considerations were also factored into the evaluation and are summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Secondary Criteria for Qualitative Evaluation # Secondary Criteria Elements of Success 1 SB X7-7 or other regulatory compliance The measure helps meet SB X7-7 compliance fulfills one of the CUWCC s BMPs or satisfies a regulatory requirement. 2 Outside funding potential 3 Equity 4 Can be leveraged with other agencies 5 Scalability 6 Multiple benefits There is a possibility of third-party funding or grant money, which would reduce overall measure costs and increase the SFPUC s benefit-to-cost ratio. The proposed measures contribute to a balanced overall conservation program that provides opportunities to all retail customer sectors. The measure may be able to be done in partnership with another agency s measure and thereby share overhead and marketing costs and increase response. The measure can be ramped up or down according to the SFPUC or regional needs. The measure has additional benefits such as reduced wastewater flows or eliminating irrigation run-off. With the results of the measure rankings, the SFPUC possessed a clear picture of each measure s overall merit and significance. The final step in the process was to assimilate all the findings and create a recommended program portfolio for the future. The SFPUC reviewed each measure and proposed one of the following actions: Eliminate the measure because it had not been conducted to date, is no longer valid because of technology or other advancements, or would not meet the future needs of the SFPUC; Add the measure to reflect new technologies and the SFPUC s needs; Modify the measure to increase its effectiveness or re-categorize some measures (e.g. grouped the hospital audit measure into the broader CII audit measure); or Continue the current measure. Page 20

29 Single-Family Program Evaluation The SFPUC evaluated seven categories of single-family residential conservation measures. Table 6 summarizes the measures recommended as part of the 2004 Report and any updates to these measures incorporated as part of this Conservation Plan. Table 6: Single-Family Conservation Measures Evaluation Findings Program Category Clothes Washers Rebate for high-efficiency clothes washers Toilet Rebate and direct install for ULFT and HET toilets Public Information Evaluation Findings & Actions Added ( ), Eliminated ( ), Continue ( ), Changed ( ) Eliminated high-efficiency clothes washer rebates for washers with over 4.5 WF (1) in order to target and drive market toward the more efficient devices. Added new measures for high-efficiency clothes washers that use 4.5 WF or less. Also added proposed California Energy Commission (CEC) washer efficiency standards to model. Eliminated rebates for ULFTs (1.6 gallons per flush gpf ) due to building code requirements of ULFTs since Current focus is on HETs (1.28 gpf), which are more water efficient, and as of July 2011 required per local building code. Eliminated retrofit kits for 5 and 7 gpf toilets to encourage preferred practice of replacing inefficient toilets with HETs. Added the rebate and direct install measures for HETs to target non-ulft fixtures and higher public response. Added Assembly Bill (AB) 715 requirements, which prohibits the sale or installation of non-high-efficiency toilets and urinals beginning in Updated Retrofit on Resale (ROR) savings calculation to reflect current ordinance requirements in the Residential Water Conservation Ordinance. (2) Continue to have a comprehensive public information measure. Leak Detection Leak detection and response assistance programs Surveys Indoor/outdoor surveys/audits Showerheads Free distribution/installation Removed from the model because it is difficult to quantify savings and costs. A major portion of residential water surveys includes leak detection. The SFPUC s Customer Service Bureau also continues to provide bill adjustments to customers who report and fix leaks. When fully implemented, the SFPUC anticipates that the installation of automatic meters, monthly billing, and customer s ability to access real-time meter data will also accelerate leak detection and repair. Continue to have a residential water survey program. Replaced 1.75 gpm showerheads give-away programs with 1.5 gpm showerheads. Added direct install program for 1.5 gpm showerheads. Dishwashers Eliminated because of low water savings potential. Rebate for dishwashers Note: (1) WF: Water Factor, which measures water use per washer cycle per cubic foot of capacity. A 4.5 WF efficiency standard means that washers cannot exceed 4.5 gallons of water per cycle per cubic foot of capacity, or about 13.5 gallons per load for a typical washer with 3 cubic feet of capacity. (2) Local residential and commercial conservation ordinances require replacement of non-efficient toilets not to exceed 1.6 gpf and replacement of non-efficient urinals not to exceed 1.0 gpf until June 30, 2011, and per 2011 San Francisco plumbing code updates, after July 1, 2011, replacements must be with toilets that do not exceed an average flush volume of 1.28 gpf and urinals that do not exceed 0.5 gpf. Page 21

30 Multi-Family Program Evaluation The SFPUC evaluated six categories of multi-family residential conservation measures. Table 7 summarizes the measures recommended as part of the 2004 Report and any updates to these measures incorporated as part of this Conservation Plan. Table 7: Multi-Family Conservation Measures Evaluation Findings Measure Category Clothes Washers Rebate for high-efficiency clothes washers Toilets Rebate, voucher, and direct install for HET toilets Submetering (Existing) Incentives for existing units Submetering (New) Incentives for new units Surveys Indoor/outdoor surveys/audits Showerheads Free distribution/installation Evaluation Findings & Actions Added ( ), Eliminated ( ), Continue the Measure ( ), Changed ( ) Eliminated high-efficiency clothes washer rebates for washers with over 4.5 WF to target and drive market toward more efficient devices. Added new measures for high-efficiency clothes washers that use 4.5 WF or less, and added proposed CEC washer efficiency standards to model. Eliminated rebates for ULFTs due to building code requirements of ULFTs since Current focus is on HETs, which are more water efficient, and as of July 2011 required per local building code. Eliminated retrofit kits for 5 and 7 gpf toilets to encourage preferred practice of replacing inefficient toilets with HETs. Added rebate and direct install measures for HETs to increase participation and accelerate replacement of 3.5 gpf and higher toilets. Added AB 715 requirements, which prohibits the sale or installation of nonhigh efficiency toilets and urinals beginning in Updated Retrofit on Resale savings calculation to reflect current ordinance requirements in the Residential Water Conservation Ordinance. Added vouchers measure to overcome cash outlay participation barriers and increase participation. Eliminated due to high utility and customer costs in existing buildings. Eliminated due to potential for inclusion in upcoming/future state legislation and green building design certification measures. Continue to have a survey measure that includes indoor and outdoor water surveys and audits. Replaced 1.75 gpm showerheads give-away measures with 1.5 gpm showerheads. Added direct install measure for 1.5 gpm showerheads. Non-Residential Program Evaluation The SFPUC evaluated 21 categories of non-residential conservation measures. Table 8 summarizes the measures recommended as part of the 2004 Report and any updates to these measures incorporated as part of this Conservation Plan. Page 22

31 Table 8: Non-Residential Conservation Measures Evaluation Findings Program Category CII Landscape Audits Site surveys for large landscapes Landscape Grants Customized grants for large landscape improvements CII Audits Staff and consultant audits CII Urinals Rebate, voucher, and direct install CII Toilets: Rebate, voucher, and direct install programs Innovative Incentives (Existing) Customized incentives for existing CII units Innovative Incentives (New) Customized incentives for new CII units Hospital Audits Water efficiency audits/surveys Coin Laundries Rebate for high-efficiency commercial clothes washers School Audits Indoor water audit/survey School Toilets Rebate, voucher, and direct install School Landscape Audits Outdoor water efficiency audit Artificial Turf Incentives Customized incentives to replace turf at schools with artificial turf Evaluation Findings & Actions Added ( ), Eliminated ( ), Continue ( ), Changed ( ) Continue to have a landscape audit program for CII customers. Added a Large Landscape Grant program for large CII customers with projects that can demonstrate significant outdoor water savings through irrigation retrofits. Continue to have a CII audit program. This program now also includes other audit types, such as schools, hotels, and hospitals. Updated the model to separately calculate water savings and program expenditures for staff and consultant audits. Eliminated zero-consumption urinals due to implementation challenges. Added rebate, voucher, and direct install programs for 0.5 gpf and 0.25 gpf urinals. Added AB 715 and California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) requirements. Added rebate, voucher, and direct install programs for HETs. Added AB 715 requirements. Costs and savings calculated separately for tank and flushometer toilets. Eliminated rebates for 1.6 gallon per flush toilets (ULFTs) due to building code requirements of ULFTs since Current focus is on HETs, which are more water efficient (1.28 gpf) and as of July 2011 required per local plumbing code. Eliminated the two-year pilot Water Savers Program that was included in the original model. Added a new CII retrofit financial incentive program that the SFPUC is currently evaluating and intends to launch in FY Not provided. With updated conservation ordinances and local green building requirements, high water efficiency is already required for new construction. Consolidated into the CII Audits program. Added rebate programs for high-efficiency clothes washers that use 4.5 WF or less. Added proposed CEC washer efficiency standards to the SFPUC s Retail Demand Model. Consolidated into the CII Audits program. Consolidated into the CII HET and Urinal programs. Consolidated into the CII Landscape Audits Program. Eliminated due to San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department taking the lead on this effort. Page 23

32 Program Category Spray Rinse Valve Distribution Free devices for businesses Food Steamer Incentives Rebate programs for highefficiency food steamers Cooling Tower Incentives Financial incentives City Landscape Efficiency Grant program for upgrading city landscape systems Water Broom Rebates Hotel Audits Hotel WAVE EPA-sponsored program Hotel Toilet Rebates Evaluation Findings & Actions Added ( ), Eliminated ( ), Continue ( ), Changed ( ) Eliminated a separately modeled pre-rinse spray valve direct installation program due to high saturation from previous Rinse & Save Program. Eliminated a separately modeled distribution program to groceries and flower shops due to high market saturation. Kept the program for restaurants as the devices are usually installed during survey visits. Eliminated due to low potential number of units and high level of free ridership, because efficient steamers are now less expensive than conventional ones. Eliminated due to low opportunity because the high water quality in the SFPUC s territory allows for high cycles of conservation without sophisticated technology. Absorbed into the Landscape Grant Program. Eliminated because of low interest by City departments. Consolidated into the CII Water Audit program. WAVE program was eliminated because it is no longer available and not implemented. Consolidated into the CII Toilet Rebate program. Quantitative Evaluation Process After the qualitative evaluation honed the number of measures, quantitative elements were reviewed and updated. These elements include actual implementation findings to date for current measures including activity levels, savings assumptions, market penetration, and costs (both utility and customer costs). The model update included reorganizing and adding to the set of conservation measures within the model, and updating the water savings and cost assumptions for single-family residential, multi-family residential and non-residential conservation measures based on the quantitative assessment. The updates to the model are discussed in the following section. Page 24

33 4. RETAIL DEMAND MODEL A key component of this Plan involved the update of the SFPUC s Retail Demand Model that was used to estimate conservation savings, project demands, and calculate cost-effectiveness. This section presents an overview of the model and summarizes the various updates made to the model. This step is highlighted in Figure 6. Figure 6: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Model Updates) Qualitative & Quantitative Evaluations Model Updates Savings & Unit Cost Projections Data Collection Calibration Goals, Progress, Future Actions Retail Demand Projections Model Overview and Summary of Updates The model was originally developed in 2004 and used by the SFPUC to forecast in-city retail water demands through The model consists of a series of Microsoft Excel-based modules that generate estimates and forecast water use for the three in-city retail customer sectors: single-family, multi-family, and non-residential. The model was also developed to estimate changes in retail demands due to plumbing codes and ordinances affecting water fixture efficiency and water use behavior. Detailed specifications of the model and the data included in it were described in the 2004 Report. The model was updated as part of this Conservation Plan development. The update maintained the basic file structure of the original model while revising some of its elements to prepare the new in-city retail demand forecasts. These updates are summarized in Table 9. Details regarding these updates are documented in the Technical Memorandum SFPUC Retail Demand Model Update and Calibration (Model TM, attached as Appendix A). Table 9: Updates Made to the SFPUC Retail Demand Model Updates Population, housing, and employment projections Codes and Ordinances Conservation measures Comments Updates were primarily based on data obtained from Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), California Department of Finance, and the City s Planning Department. Incorporated savings from new regulations into the model, including the City s 2009 Residential Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 76-09), the phase-in of high-efficiency toilet standards under AB 715, CEC proposed efficiency standards for residential clothes washers, and the City s green building standards. Updated the suite of now out-of-date measures included in the original model to better reflect the mix of conservation measures and technologies that the SFPUC expects to implement in the near future. Page 25

34 Updates Assumptions of water savings, implementation costs Model structure Comments Revised to align with current operation costs and program accomplishment. Made minor changes to the model structure to make water savings and device inventory and saturation calculations more transparent. Forecast period Extended to 2035 (original model only went up to 2030). Financial assumptions Water loss Adjusted discount rate and inflation assumptions to conform to planning assumptions. Fixed demand projection formula to eliminate double-counting of water loss due to meter under-registration. The updated model was used to: Establish the in-city retail water demand baseline; Project savings due to changes in plumbing codes; and Project savings due to changes in plumbing codes and conservation measures. The model also presents cost-effectiveness information for each conservation measure. Input Data and Key Assumptions One of the key elements of the model is the demographic data, which directly affects the accuracy of the baseline water demand estimates and the water savings projections since all these projections are based on the end-use of water within households. As such, a lot of effort was invested in collecting and validating the demographic data. Table 10 shows the updated population and housing projections used in the model. The data is also illustrated graphically in Figure 7. Data were obtained from several sources, including the Department of Finance, Census 2000, ABAG 2009, and the San Francisco Planning Department. Section 3.2 of Appendix A provides detailed comparisons of these updates to the numbers used in the original model. Over the next 25 years, household units are projected to increase by approximately 0.7 percent per year. The number of multi-family units is projected to experience steady growth (from 68 percent of total household units in 2010 to 72 percent in 2035), while the number of single-family units is expected to increase much more slowly. Table 10: Updated San Francisco County Demographic Projections Demographics Annual Growth % Household Population (1) 835, , , , , , % Household Units (2) 350, , , , , , % Single-Family Units (3) 110, , , , , , % Persons per SF Household (4) NA Multi-Family Units (5) 239, , , , , , % Persons per MF Household (4) NA Page 26

35 Notes: (1) Household population for 2010 based on Department of Finance E-5 Housing and Population Estimates, dated May The 2030 population estimate was taken from the Citywide Projections, dated July Household populations for 2015, 2020, and 2025 were interpolated using the 2010 and 2030 projections. (2) Number of housing units for 2010 based on Department of Finance E-5 Housing and Population Estimates, dated May The 2030 housing unit estimate was taken from the Citywide Projections, dated July Housing unit projections for 2015, 2020, and 2025 were interpolated using the 2010 and 2030 projections. (3) Single-family housing units in 2010 were set equal to the number of single-family residential accounts for those years. Single-family housing units for other years were interpolated using the average rate of single-family account growth from 1990 to (4) Persons per household were updated for both the single-family and multi-family units. The updated projections were derived from Census 2000 data, and then scaled so that household population computed by multiplying the number of units by persons per household equaled the updated population projection. (5) The number of multi-family housing units was imputed as the difference between the projection of total housing units and singlefamily housing unit. Figure 7: Updated San Francisco Demographic Projection Household Units Population 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50, Single Family (SF) Units Multi Family (MF) Units Household Population 1,000, , , , , , , , , ,000 0 The updated employment projections used in the model are summarized in Table 11 and illustrated graphically in Figure 8. These projections were used to generate non-residential water demand and savings estimates. Employment projects are based on updated ABAG Projection 2009 and Draft ABAG Projection 2011 developed as part of the Bay Area s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The model calculates baseline non-residential water demand as the product of projected employment and average gallons per employee-day (GED) for nine commercial and industrial sectors. Page 27

36 Job Sector Category Table 11: Updated San Francisco Employment Projections GED Employment Projection Annual Growth % Ag. Services and Mining , % Construction ,060 27,606 29,444 32,316 34,687 36, % Manufacturing ,760 26,845 29,546 31,434 33,709 35, % Transportation & Public Utilities ,150 27,202 27,741 27,433 27,531 28, % Information (1) ,860 36,877 38,497 41,436 43,932 46, % Retail Trade ,000 44,983 47,281 53,165 56,067 58, % Finance, Insurance, Real Estate ,720 78,722 82,594 87,836 91,918 96, % Services , , , , , , % Government ,400 24,093 24,862 26,469 27,229 28, % Total N/A 544, , , , , , % Note: (1) The original model s commercial and industrial sectors were based on how ABAG classified employment at the time the original model was developed. ABAG s 2009 projections reclassified employment in some sectors, combining the wholesale sector with manufacturing and adding a new Information sector. GED estimates for the new Information sector were not available. Therefore, the GED for this new sector was set to the average GED for the other sectors, which is ,000 Figure 8: Updated San Francisco Employment Projection 700, , , , , , , Government Services Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Retail Trade Information Transportation and Public Utilities Manufacturing Construction Agriculture Services and Mining Code and Ordinance Updates The model was also updated to account for expected water savings from the following state and/or city codes and ordinances that were enacted after the original model was developed in 2004: AB 715 and California Green Building Standards Code San Francisco Residential Water Conservation Ordinance (Retrofit-On-Resale Ordinance) CEC Clothes Washer Efficiency Standards Page 28

37 AB 715 and California Green Building Standards Code These requirements prohibit the sale or installation of non high-efficiency toilets and urinals starting in The model assumes that toilets replaced naturally or in response to city ordinances will convert to ULFTs prior to 2014 and HETs thereafter. Similarly, the model assumes that urinals replaced naturally or in response to city ordinances will convert to 1.0 gpf urinals prior to 2014 and 0.5 gpf urinals thereafter. The ordinance also requires the replacement of showerheads with flow rates greater than 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) and faucet aerators with flow rates greater than 2.2 gpm. Studies of residential water use in San Francisco have estimated average flow rates for showerheads and faucets below these thresholds. Ordinance requirements for showerheads and aerators are not expected to generate significant incremental water savings and therefore are not modeled directly. San Francisco Residential Water Conservation Ordinance (Retrofit-on-Resale) Starting in 2009, this city ordinance requires replacement of non-ulft/het toilets and urinals in residential properties upon resale, and replacement of non-ulft/het toilets and urinals in commercial properties not later than Because of AB 715 and Cal Green, the model assumes toilets will convert to ULFTs prior to 2014 and HETs thereafter, and urinals will convert to 1.0 gpf prior to 2014 and 0.5 gpf thereafter. Replacement rates of residential toilets are accelerated starting in 2009 as a result of the retrofit-on-resale requirement. The model does not assume complete retrofit of toilets and urinals in commercial properties by Rather, it assumes replacement rates of 4 percent a year in commercial properties, similar to current rates of natural replacement of commercial plumbing fixtures. This results in an expected Commercial Water Conservation Ordinance compliance rate of approximately 70 percent by 2017 for non-residential properties. California Energy Commission (CEC) Clothes Washer Efficiency Standards The CEC has proposed a statewide water efficiency standard for clothes washers of 8.5 WF effective January 1, 2007, and 6.0 WF effective January 1, However, the federal government has acted to block implementation of the standards, which have yet to take effect. The years in which the standards are assumed to take effect are set to 2010 for 8.5 WF and 2015 for 6.0 WF. While the state has yet to adopt the proposed efficiency standard, washers with an 8.5 WF or less are now fairly common place in the market. Thus, the assumption that an 8.5 WF becomes the de facto standard in 2010 is consistent with current market penetration of high-efficiency washers. Other Codes and Ordinances Two ordinances affecting landscape water use were not directly modeled. These were the City s Green Landscaping Ordinance and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The former is intended to support the use of landscape for screening and greening front setback areas. While the ordinance is designed to encourage responsible water use through climate appropriate plantings, lack of implementation data make its potential impact on water demand impossible to predict at this time. San Francisco also recently adopted new requirements for new landscape projects and landscape modification projects over 1,000 square feet. The ordinance requires that landscape projects be installed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with rules adopted by the SFPUC that establish a water budget for outdoor water consumption. As with the Green Landscaping Ordinance, data limitations prevented inclusion of this ordinance in the model. Page 29

38 Conservation Program Specification Updates The model update also involved re-organizing, updating and adding to the set of conservation measures included within the model. These updates involved changes to the activity/implementation level assumptions, savings calculations and assumptions, and cost assumptions for some of the existing measures based on actual implementation findings from the SFPUC staff and/or other observed industry standards. Conservation program savings are calculated as the difference in water use WITH and WITHOUT the program to avoid double counting code-driven water savings. Model Calibration The updated model was calibrated to actual customer class demands for 2000 and Table 12 shows the percentage difference between actual and predicted demands in both calibration years, as well as the actual and modeled water use in In 2000, the model slightly under predicted multi-family demand and over predicted non-residential demand. The model closely tracked single-family demand in both calibration years. Other demands, which consist of Builders and Contractors (B&C), and Docks and Shipping (D&S) customers, are fixed in the model at their historic average of 0.2 mgd, and are not adjusted as part of model calibration. Overall, the updated model closely tracks actual demands in 2000 and It is within about 2 percent of actual retail demand in 2000 and within about 1 percent of actual retail demand in Table 12: Model Calibration Results Demand Class Actual Model % Actual Model % Actual Model % (mgd) (mgd) Difference (mgd) (mgd) Difference (mgd) (mgd) Difference Single-Family % % % Multi-Family % % % Non-Residential % % % Other (1) % % % Retail Demand % % % Notes: (1) Other: Builders and Contractors, Docks and Shipping. The model over predicted the 2010 retail demand by about 7 percent. This over prediction was expected for three reasons. First, the very wet spring and cool summer California experienced in 2010 depressed urban water demand across the state. Second, 2008 and 2009 were both dry and households and businesses were encouraged to conserve water, and while rainfall returned to normal or above normal in 2010, conservation messaging continued through most of the year. Third, the sharp economic decline that started in 2008 pushed down commercial and industrial demands. While the model was able to capture the employment-related changes in demand, it may not be picking up changes in the residential sectors related to the home foreclosure crisis that was experienced state-wide in Therefore, the calibration results were deemed acceptable because the model is calibrated to long-term weather and economic conditions, and is not designed to precisely mirror temporary perturbations in demand caused by unusual weather or economic circumstances. Page 30

39 5. RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION PROGRAM This section describes the conservation measures selected to be evaluated in the model, their corresponding water saving projections, measure length, activity levels, and cost-effectiveness. This step is highlighted in Figure 9. Figure 9: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Savings & Unit Cost Projections) Qualitative & Quantitative Evaluations Model Updates Savings & Unit Cost Projections Data Collection Calibration Goals, Progress, Future Actions Retail Demand Projections Conservation Measures and Implementation Timeline Table 13 presents the recommended conservation measures moving forward from 2010, their implementation timeline and description of activity. Conservation programs are assumed to operate through 2035 with the exception of single-family toilet measures, non-residential toilet and urinal measures, and single-family washer rebate measures, which end earlier because full market penetration will be realized. With Assembly Bill 715 legislation that requires the sale and installation of HETs starting 2014, it is assumed that toilet replacement measures, in particular, will change and be replaced by other conservation efforts over time that seek a similar amount of water savings. It is difficult to predict in 2011 what specific conservation measures and technologies will be implemented in 10 years, so the measure descriptions in this plan are left general and in terms used today. Additionally, understanding the current market saturation of water efficient fixtures lends focus the SFPUC s future conservation program efforts. For example, while there has been significant progress toward installation of high-efficiency toilets and washers, estimated market penetration of efficient urinals and flushometer valve toilets is lower. The SFPUC is evaluating potential measure adjustments to increase the incentive amounts and marketing to encourage participation in urinal and flush valve toilet replacement measures. Additional measures the SFPUC is conducting or plans to conduct that were not modeled are discussed later in this section. Page 31

40 Table 13: Conservation Measures Evaluated by Model # Measure Length Description Single-Family Residential Conservation Program Clothes Washers 1 CEE Tier 2 (WF 4.5) Rebate 2 yrs Provide rebates for high-efficiency washing machines (4.5 WF or better). Rebates do not apply to clothes washers that use silver ion technologies. Rebates will not necessarily cover the incremental cost of the more efficient machines. It is assumed that once a machine expires, the customer will replace with an identical machine. This measure is estimated to operate for 2 years, and will then shift to rebating machines that are WF 4.0 or better. This is to encourage the public to install the more efficient machines. 2 CEE Tier 3 (WF 4.0) Rebate 20 yrs Provide rebates for high-efficiency washing machines (4.0 WF or better). Rebates do not apply to clothes washers that use silver ion technologies. Rebates will not necessarily cover the incremental cost of the more efficient machine. It is assumed that once a machine expires, the customer will replace with an identical machine. Toilets 3 HET Rebate 15 yrs Provide rebates for the retrofit of qualified HETs that use 1.28 gpf or less. This also includes dual-flush toilets from the SFPUC s list of qualifying HETs. 4 HET Direct Install 15 yrs (1) Purchase and offer free installation services for the retrofit of qualified HETs. Only qualified customers are eligible for this measure. 5 Retrofit on Resale (Residential Water Conservation Ordinance) 27 yrs Starting 2009, the Residential Water Conservation Ordinance requires that HETs to be installed at the time of property sale. A certificate of compliance needs to be submitted to the SFPUC that verifies that a plumber has inspected the property and efficient fixtures were either already there or were installed at the time of sale, before close of escrow. Public Information 6 Public Information 25 yrs Provide public and school education to raise awareness of conservation measures available to customers. Measures include poster contests, speakers to community groups, radio and television time, printed educational material such as bill inserts, and major media campaign (e.g. Water Saving Hero multi-media campaign in ), curriculums, presentations and field trips to school classes. Residential Water Surveys 7 Water Surveys 25 yrs Offer indoor and outdoor water surveys to single-family residential customers. Provide customized recommendations to homeowners. Showerheads gpm showerheads - give away 25 yrs Provide customers with free retrofit kits that contain easy-to-install 1.5 gpm showerheads gpm showerheads - direct install 25 yrs Provide and install 1.5 gpm showerheads for customers free of charge. Installation usually happens as part of a residential water survey. Page 32

41 # Measure Length Description Multi-Family Residential Conservation Program Clothes Washers 10 CEE Tier 2 (WF 4.5) Rebate 2 yrs Provide rebates for high-efficiency washing machines (WF 4.5 or better). Rebates do not apply to clothes washers that use silver ion technologies. Rebates will not necessarily cover the incremental cost of the more efficient machines. It is assumed that once the machine expires, the customer will replace with an identical machine. This measure is estimated to operate for 2 years, and will then shift to rebating machines that are WF 4.0 or better. This is to encourage the public to install the more efficient machines. 11 CEE Tier 3 (WF 4.0) Rebate 25 yrs Provide rebates for a high-efficiency washing machine (WF 4.0 or better). Rebates do not apply to clothes washers that use silver ion technologies. Rebates will not necessarily cover the incremental cost of the more efficient machines. It is assumed that once the machine expires, the customer will replace with an identical machine. Toilets 12 HET Rebate Tank 25 yrs Provide rebates for the retrofit of qualified HETs. This also includes dualflush toilets from the SFPUC s list of qualifying HETs. 13 HET Rebate Flushometer 25 yrs Provide rebates for the retrofit of qualified HETs. This also includes dualflush toilets from the SFPUC s list of qualifying HETs. 14 HET Voucher Tank 25 yrs Provide vouchers for the retrofit of qualified HETs. This also includes dualflush toilets from the SFPUC s list of qualifying HETs. 15 HET Voucher Flushometer 25 yrs Provide vouchers for the retrofit of a qualified HET. This also includes dualflush toilets from the SFPUC s list of qualifying HETs. 16 HET Direct Install Tank 25 yrs (1) Purchase and offer free installation services for the retrofit of qualified HETs. Only qualified customers are eligible for this measure. 17 HET Direct Install - Flushometer 25 yrs (1) Purchase and offer free installation services for the retrofit of qualified HETs. Only qualified customers are eligible for this measure. 18 Residential Water Conservation Ordinance (Retrofit on Resale) 25 yrs Require HETs to be installed at the time of sale. A certificate of compliance needs to be submitted to the SFPUC that verifies that a plumber has inspected the property and efficient fixtures were either already there or were installed at the time of sale, before close of escrow. Residential Water Surveys 19 Water Surveys 25 yrs Offer indoor and outdoor water surveys to multi-family residential customers. Provide customized recommendations to property owners. Showerheads gpm showerheads - give away 25 yrs Provide customers with free retrofit kits that contain easy-to-install 1.5 gpm showerhead devices gpm showerheads - direct install 25 yrs Install 1.5 gpm showerheads for customers free of charge. Installation usually happens as part of a water survey. Page 33

42 # Measure Length Description Non-Residential Conservation Program Landscape 22 Landscape Audits 25 yrs 23 Landscape Grants 25 yrs Offer free audits regarding outdoor water use for CII customers. Provide customized recommendations and reports. Offer grants to eligible large landscape property owners to make retrofits and improvements to its irrigation system. Audits Urinals 26 SFPUC Staff Water Audits Consultant Water Audits CII Urinal 0.5 gpf Rebate 25 yrs 25 yrs Offer indoor and outdoor water surveys to CII customers. Provide customized recommendations and reports. Audits are conducted by the SFPUC inspectors. Offer indoor and outdoor water surveys to CII customers. Provide customized recommendations and reports. Audits are conducted by consultants. 24 yrs Provide rebates for the retrofit of a qualified high-efficiency urinal at 0.5 gpf. 27 Toilets CII Urinal 0.25 gpf Rebate 25 yrs 28 CII HET Rebate Tank 17 yrs 29 CII HET Rebate Flushometer Innovative Retrofits 23 yrs Provide rebates for the retrofit of a qualified high-efficiency urinal at 0.25 gpf. Provide rebates for the retrofit of qualified HETs. HETs must consist of approved bowl and flushometer combinations chosen from the SFPUC s qualifying list. Provide rebates for the retrofit of qualified HETs. HETs must consist of approved bowl and flushometer combinations chosen from the SFPUC s qualifying list. 30 Large Innovative Retrofit Incentives 25 yrs Incentives focus exclusively on large CII users and provide long-term, measurable water savings through permanent hardware installation and/or retrofit and/or process improvement. Clothes Washers 31 Coin-Op CEE Tier 2 (WF 4.5) Rebate 2 yrs Provide rebates for a high-efficiency washing machine (WF 4.5 or better) to CII customers, such as coin operated machines in laundromats. Also changed policy in 2009 to allow rebates for 5-year lease agreements 32 Coin-Op CEE Tier 3 (WF 4.0) Rebate 25 yrs Provide rebates for a high-efficiency washing machine (WF 4.0 or better) to CII customers, such as coin operated machines in laundromats. Also changed policy in 2009 to allow rebates for 5-year lease agreements Low Flow Sprayers 33 Low Flow Sprayers- Restaurants 25 yrs Provide free low-flow sprayers to restaurants. Notes: (1) The measure length shown is an assumption based on toilet population, however through adaptive management, the SFPUC may chose adjust or eliminate direct install measures sooner than Page 34

43 Projected Savings from Measures Modeled Estimated annual and cumulative water savings for single-family, multi-family, and non-residential conservation measures are summarized in Table 14 and illustrated in Figure 10. The values shown do not include the projected savings from state or federal plumbing codes and building standards, or from additional activities the SFPUC does but were not evaluated in the model. These values are the savings directly attributable to the 33 conservation measures in Table 13. Together, the 33 conservation measures evaluated in the model have the potential to cumulatively save as much as 193,689 acre feet of water. 11 Note that some of the conservation measures for the multi-family and non-residential sectors are relatively new and their participation levels are uncertain at this time. These measures are expected to expand and evolve over time. As such, activity levels assigned to these measures could be somewhat conservative, yielding less water savings than they may potentially achieve. Table 14: Projected Annual and Cumulative Water Savings by Customer Sector Annual Water Savings in Selected Years Cumulative Customer Sector 2005 (1) Savings (model (2) (AF) (3) start year) Single-family (AF/Yr) ,756 2,285 2,555 2,393 2,092 66,943 Multi-family (AF/Yr) ,292 1,873 2,205 2,394 2,513 65,960 Non-Residential (AF/Yr) ,547 1,876 2,091 2,168 2,152 60,785 Total Annual Savings (AF/Yr) (4) 35 1,681 4,595 6,034 6,851 6,955 6, ,689 Total Annual Savings (mgd) (5) Notes: (1) Savings from conservation measures is zero in 2005 because 2005 is set to be the starting point of the model runs. The zero savings does not reflect the water savings achieved from active water conservation measures prior to (2) Water savings are expected to experience a slight decline after 2030 because all conservation measures are assumed to operate through 2035 with the exception of single-family toilet measures, non-residential toilet and urinal measures, and single-family washer rebate measures, which end earlier because full market penetration is realized. (3) Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. Also note that the cumulative savings do not equal to the sum of the columns to the left, since cumulative savings includes the annual savings from all the intervening years in addition to the years shown in the table. (4) Sums may show a difference of 1 AF/yr or 1AF due to rounding. (5) One (1) mgd equals to 1,121 AF/Yr. Values may show a difference of 0.1 mgd due to rounding. Over the next 25 years, the number of multi-family units is projected to steadily increase (from 68 percent of total household units in 2010 to 72 percent in 2035) while the number of single-family units is expected to remain relatively constant. Since multi-family units comprise of almost two-thirds of the City s housing stock, they hold a large potential in water savings. The SFPUC has recently launched several measures targeted specifically at reducing the water use of this sector, and expect to continue to expand the measure s coverage in order to capture this sector s full water saving potentials. As such, water savings from the multi-family sector in 2010 is estimated to be only 11 percent of the total savings. This is expected to increase to 37 percent by Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. Page 35

44 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2011 Retail Water Conservation Plan Figure 10: Estimated Water Savings by Consumer Sector Water Savings (AF) 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Non Residential 11.2% 40.9% 47.9% 38.2% 28.1% 33.7% 37.9% 31.0% 37.3% 34.4% 31.0% 32.2% 34.4% 37.2% 31.1% 30.5% 31.2% 31.8% Single-Family Residential Program Savings Single-family residential conservation measures primarily focus on the installation of higher-efficiency plumbing fixtures such as toilets, clothes washers, and showerheads. Because of its highly urbanized setting, indoor water use accounts for the majority of the City s residential water use, while outdoor water use only accounts for approximately 10 percent or less of total water use. The SFPUC offers conservation measures targeted at encouraging single-family residents to install highefficiency clothes washers, showerheads, and toilets. Measures include rebate programs for clothes washers, free distribution and direct installation services of low-flow showerheads for eligible customers, as well as direct installation and cash rebates of high-efficiency toilets. Table 15 and Figure 11 present the projected annual water savings through 2035 from single-family retail conservation measures. The total cumulative savings from these measures are projected to reach 66,943 acre feet. Figure 12 shows the cumulative savings from each measure and their corresponding percentages of the total cumulative savings. Table 15: Single-Family Conservation Measures Annual and Cumulative Water Savings Projection Conservation Measures 2005 (1) model start year Annual Water Savings in Selected Years Cumulative Savings (AF) (2) Clothes Washer Rebates (AF/Yr) ,078 1,141 1,158 (3) ,690 Toilet Rebates /Direct Install/ROR (AF/Yr) ,052 1,206 (4) ,495 Home Water Surveys (AF/Yr) Showerhead Distribution /Direct Install (AF/Yr) ,584 Total Annual Savings (AF/Yr) (5) ,756 2,285 2,555 2,393 2,092 66,943 Total Annual Savings (mgd) (6) Page 36

45 Notes: (1) Savings from conservation measures is zero in 2005 because 2005 is set to be the starting point of the model runs. The zero savings does not reflect the water savings achieved from active water conservation measures prior to (2) Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. Also note that the cumulative savings do not equal to the sum of the columns to the left, since cumulative savings includes the annual savings from all the intervening years in addition to the years shown in the table. (3) The clothes washers rebate measure ends in 2030 because full market penetration is realized. An increasing amount of the savings from the past fixture replacements are credited to the code. The total physical volume of savings does not diminish, but the amount of this physical volume credited to the measure does. (4) The toilet rebate and direct install measures end in 2025 because full market penetration is realized. An increasing amount of the savings from the past fixture replacements are credited to the code. The total physical volume of savings does not diminish, but the amount of this physical volume credited to the measure does. (5) Sums may show a difference of 1 AF/yr or 1AF due to rounding. (6) One (1) mgd equals to 1,121 AF/Yr. Values may show a difference of 0.1 mgd due to rounding. Figure 11: Single-Family Conservation Measures Annual Water Savings Projection Water Savings (AF) 1,400 1,200 1, Clothes Washers Toilets Water Surveys Showerheads The toilet programs and clothes washers programs are projected to end in 2025 and 2030, respectively, because full market penetration is expected to be realized. An increasing amount of the savings from the past fixture replacements are credited to passive building codes and ordinances. The total physical volume of savings does not diminish, but the amount of this physical volume that are credited to the program does. Figure 12: Single-Family Conservation Measures Cumulative Water Savings Projection Showerheads Water Surveys 174 AF (0.3%) 4,584 AF (6.8%) Thesesavings are directly attributable to the active conservation measures. Values do not include savings from state/federal plumbing codes and building standards. Toilets 35,495 AF (53.0%) Clothes Washers 26,690 AF (39.9%) Page 37

46 Toilets account for a significant portion of indoor water use and older toilets can use a lot more water than high-efficiency toilets. To encourage program participation, the SFPUC offers several measures specifically targeted at toilet replacement, including a direct install program for the City s Community Assistance Program participants and rebates for eligible residents for the purchase of qualifying highefficiency toilets. In 2009 the City also adopted an updated Residential Water Conservation Ordinance referred to as the Retrofit on Resale measure. The ordinance requires homes to be equipped with water efficient fixtures prior to being sold. This includes replacing non-efficient toilets with ULFTs or HETs until July 2011 and after that with only HETs per local building code updates. The ordinance also requires efficient showerheads with a maximum flow rate of 2.5 gpm. Together, these measures are projected to achieve the highest cumulative savings (53 percent) of all single-family conservation measures. In contrast, the model does not assume much in the way of direct water savings from residential surveys. Instead it assigns most water savings to actual fixture replacements and considers surveys an important means to encourage customers to take water-savings actions such as replacing inefficient toilets or fixing leaks. Leak detection and repair is also not modeled or assigned water savings but can result in significant savings. Multi-Family Residential Program Savings Approximately two-thirds of the City s housing stock is multi-family residential buildings, and they also account for the majority of the City s future household growth (see Table 10 and Figure 7). As such, the multi-family residential sector has the potential to realize significant savings in the future. Similar to the single-family residential sector, water use in multi-family properties is primarily generated by indoor plumbing fixtures such as toilets, clothes washers, and showerheads. Outdoor water use in the multifamily sector is nearly negligible. Multi-family conservation measures are similar to that of the single-family sector, including rebates for clothes washers, water surveys, free distribution and direct installation services of low-flow showerheads, and direct install and cash rebates for high-efficiency toilets. Multi-family properties are also subject to compliance with the Residential Water Conservation Ordinance (the Retrofit on Resale program). Property owners are therefore required to replace inefficient plumbing fixtures with efficient fixtures before selling the property. In addition to these measures, the SFPUC also offers free HETs through a voucher program for multifamily customers. The program covers the purchase cost of HETs while the property owners cover the installation costs. The program was first launched in 2010 and has since distributed over 1,400 HETs to more than 30 multi-family properties. As noted earlier, demographic data indicates that the number of multi-family units is projected to experience steady growth in the near future (from 68 percent of total household units in 2010 to 72 percent in 2035). Some of the conservation measures for the multi-family sector are relatively new and their participation levels are uncertain at this time. As such, activity levels assigned to these measures could be somewhat conservative, yielding less water savings than they may potentially achieve. Table 16 and Figure 13 present the projected annual water savings through 2035 from multi-family retail conservation measures. Savings are relatively low in 2010 because some of the measures just started in These savings are expected to increase significantly in the future as more public become more aware of the program and participate in them. The total cumulative savings from the conservation measure activities implemented during the planning period (2005 to 2035) are projected to achieve about 65,960 AF. Figure 14 shows each program s cumulative savings and its corresponding percentage of the total savings. Page 38

47 Table 16: Multi-Family Conservation Measures Annual and Cumulative Water Savings Projection Customer Sector Annual Water Savings in Selected Years Cumulative 2005 (1) Savings (model (AF) (2) start year) Clothes Washer Rebates (AF/Yr) ,118 1,185 1,226 24,001 Toilet Rebates/ Vouchers/ Direct Install/ ROR (AF/Yr) ,003 1,100 1,153 40,083 Home Water Surveys (AF/Yr) Showerhead Distribution /Direct Install (AF/Yr) ,757 Total Annual Savings (AF/Yr) (3) ,292 1,873 2,205 2,394 2,513 65,960 Total Annual Savings (mgd) (4) Notes: (1) Savings from conservation measures is zero in 2005 because 2005 is set to be the starting point of the model runs. The zero savings does not reflect the water savings achieved from active water conservation measures prior to (2) Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. Also note that the cumulative savings do not equal to the sum of the columns to the left, since cumulative savings includes the annual savings from all the intervening years in addition to the years shown in the table. (3) Sums may show a difference of 1 AF/yr or 1AF due to rounding. (4) One (1) mgd equals to 1,121 AF/Yr. Values may show a difference of 0.1 mgd due to rounding. Figure 13: Multi-Family Conservation Program Projected Annual Water Savings Water Savings (AF) 1,400 1,200 1, Clothes Washers Toilets Water Surveys Showerheads Page 39

48 Figure 14: Cumulative Savings for Multi-Family Residential Programs Showerheads Water Surveys 1,757 AF (2.7%) 120 AF (0.2%) Thesesavings are directly attributable to the active conservation measures.values do not include savings from state/federal plumbing codes and building standards. Toilets 40,083 AF (60.8%) Clothes Washers 24,001 AF (36.4%) Non-Residential Program Savings Both Table 17 and Figure 15 present the projected annual and cumulative water savings from nonresidential retail conservation measures. The total cumulative savings from these measures are projected to reach about 60,774 AF. Figure 16 shows each measure s cumulative savings and its corresponding percentage of the total savings. Some non-residential measures (hospital audits, school audits, and City/PUC landscape programs) are consolidated into the broader CII audits and CII landscape audits programs starting in Prior to the consolidation, these measures have cumulatively saved about 11 AF of water. After 2011, their savings are accounted for under the CII audit program s savings. Table 17: Non-Residential Conservation Measures Annual & Cumulative Water Savings Projection Customer Sector 2005 (1) (model start year) Annual Water Savings in Selected Years Cumulative Savings (AF) (2) Landscape Audits (AF/Yr) ,021 Landscape Grants (AF/Yr) ,534 CII Water Audits (AF/Yr) ,918 Urinal Rebates (AF/Yr) ,777 HET Rebates (AF/Yr) ,006 Large Innovative Retrofit Incentives (LIRI) (AF/Yr) ,362 Hospital Audits Coin-Op Clothes Washer Rebates (AF/Yr) ,205 School Audits Pre-Rinse Spray Valves (AF/Yr) City/PUC Landscape Grants Annual Total Savings (AF/Yr) (3) ,547 1,876 2,091 2,168 2,152 60,785 Annual Total Savings (mgd) (4) Notes: (1) Savings from conservation measures is zero in 2005 because 2005 is set to be the starting point of the model runs. The zero savings does not reflect the water savings achieved from active water conservation measures prior to Page 40

49 (2) Cumulative savings refers to the total savings achieved by all modeled conservation activities implemented during the forecast period (from 2005 to 2035). Savings from some fixture replacement measures continue beyond 2035, since a fixture that is replaced in 2035 will continue to accumulate savings until it reaches the end of its lifespan. Also note that the cumulative savings do not equal to the sum of the columns to the left, since cumulative savings includes the annual savings from all the intervening years in addition to the years shown in the table. (3) Sums may show a difference of 1 AF/yr or 1AF due to rounding. (4) One (1) mgd equals to 1,121 AF/Yr. Values may show a difference of 0.1 mgd due to rounding. Figure 15: Non-Residential Conservation Measures Annual Water Savings Projection Water Savings (AF) Landscape Audits^ Landscape Grants^ Water Audits^ CII Urinals CII Toilets* LIRI CII Clothes Washers* Restaurants Sprayers Notes: ^ Some programs do not show an increase in water savings after a period of time. Savings from these programs are set to a finite lifetime. For example, it is assumed that savings generated from landscape grants will last for 10 years, after which new grants need to be provided to continue the savings. *The CII toilet and clothes washers rebate programs are projected to end before 2035 because full market penetration is expected to be realized. An increasing amount of the savings from the past fixture replacements are credited to thepassive savings due to plumbing code and building standards. The total physical volume of savings does not diminish, but the amount of this physical volume credited to the program does. Figure 16: Non-Residential Conservation Measures Cumulative Water Savings Projection Restaurants Sprayers 952 AF (1.6%) CII Clothes Washers LIRI 5,362 AF (8.8%) 9,205 AF (15.1%) CII Toilets 24,006 AF (39.5%) CII Urinals Water Audits Landscape Grants Landscape Audits 4,777 AF (7.9%) 7,918 AF (13.0%) 6,534 AF (10.8%) 2,021 AF (3.3%) Thesesavings are directly attributable to the active conservation measures. Values do not include savings from state/federal plumbing codes and building standards. Unit Costs of Water Savings The cumulative water savings, present value of the SFPUC retail conservation measures, and the unit costs are summarized in Table 18 and graphically illustrated in Figure 17. Present value is a typical measurement to show the total cost of the program in today s dollars, while unit cost shows the present Page 41

50 value cost per unit of water, which enables comparison. Present value and unit cost calculations assume a nominal discount rate of 5 percent and a long-term inflation rate of 3 percent. To provide an accurate estimate of the cost of program water savings, the present value of program costs is divided by the discounted cumulative water savings. This methodology conforms to how the SFPUC calculates unit costs for other water supply investments. Details of this methodology are described in Section 4.3 of Appendix A. The average unit cost of water savings across all measures is $860/AF. The average unit cost is $1,009/AF for single-family measures, $609/AF for multi-family measures, and $952/AF for nonresidential measures. Measure Name Table 18: Unit Costs by Conservation Measure and Customer Sector Cum. Savings (1,000 AF) Present Value Cost ($1,000) Unit Cost ($/AF) Single-Family Residential Washer Rebates 26.7 $10,433 $498 HET Rebates/Direct Install/ROR 35.5 $22,084 $911 Public Information (1) N/A $3,411 N/A Residential Surveys (2) 0.2 $11,963 N/A Showerhead Replacement 4.6 $1,291 $378 RSF Total (3) 66.9 $49,182 $1,009 Multi-Family Residential Washer Rebates 24.0 $1,045 $58 HET Rebates/Direct Install/ROR 40.1 $23,486 $911 Residential Surveys (2) 0.1 $2,428 N/A Showerhead Replacement 1.8 $620 $482 RMF Total (3) 66.0 $27,579 $609 Non-Residential Residential Landscape-Audits (4) 2.0 $1,935 $1,228 Landscape-Grants 6.5 $24,272 $4,826 SFPUC Staff Water Audits (5) 3.0 $1,183 $464 Consultant Water Audits 4.9 $1,487 $384 CII Urinal Rebates 4.8 $1,799 $588 HET Rebates/Direct Install 24.0 $8,041 $501 Large Innovative Retrofit Incentives 5.4 $3,051 $784 Coin-Op Washer Rebates 9.2 $239 $31 Low Flow Sprayers-Restaurants 1.0 $209 $289 NR - Total 60.8 $42,217 $952 All Measures $118,978 $860 Notes: (1) Savings from public information assumed to be included in savings estimates of other measures. (2) Single-family and multi-family surveys support plumbing fixture rebate measures. Savings mostly counted in those measures. (3) Unit cost for combined single-family measures incorporates costs for public information and single-family surveys. Same for multi-family surveys. (4) The City/PUC Landscape Measure along with its present value cost is rolled into Landscape-Audits. (5) Some non-residential measures (hospital audits and school/university audits) are consolidated into the broader CII audits measures starting in Page 42

51 Figure 17: Conservation Measure Unit Costs SFR: Washer Rebates SFR: HET Rebates/Direct Install/ROR SFR: Showerhead Replacement MFR: Washer Rebates MFR: HET Rebates/Vouchers/Direct Install/ROR MFR: Showerhead Replacement NR: Landscape Audits NR: Landscape Grants NR: SFPUC Staff Water Audits NR: Consultant Water Audits NR: CII Urinal Rebates NR: HET Rebates/Direct Install NR: Large Innovative Retrofit Incentives NR: Coin Op Washer Rebates NR: Low Flow Sprayers Restaurants $58/AF $31/AF $498/AF $911/AF $378/AF $482/AF $464/AF $384/AF $588/AF $501/AF $289/AF $911/AF $784/AF $1,228/AF $4,826/AF Unit costs are not calculated directly for public information and residential survey programs. These measures generate water savings primarily in conjunction with the other conservation measures, particularly plumbing fixture replacement measures, and the water savings are captured primarily through these measures. Costs for public information and residential survey measures, however, are incorporated into the average unit costs for single- and multi-family measures. This is why the average unit cost for single-family measures exceeds the highest unit cost of single-family measures listed in Table 18. Measures with the lowest unit costs (indicative of high cost-effectiveness) are the multi-family residential washer rebates and coin-op washer rebates for the non-residential sector. Washers in multi-family buildings and coin-op washers are likely to have much higher number of uses per unit (more loads per day), and are therefore likely to realize higher savings per unit. The landscape grants program has the highest unit cost. This is partly due to limited data available at the time the model was updated. Costs for this measure were based on a total of six grant projects received in the past two years. While it has a high unit cost, large landscape retrofits aligns with the SFPUC s mission of diversifying conservation measures, meeting BMP requirements, and encouraging the use of non-potable water for irrigation needs. Additionally, these projects will help in estimating future water savings from similar types of projects. The SFPUC may consider revising the measure specifications and refining the assumptions in the future when more data becomes available. Measures not Accounted for in the Model In addition to the measures discussed above, the SFPUC also implemented many other measures that are not included in the model, but they also directly or indirectly contribute to water savings in the City. School Education Programs The SFPUC s water conservation education program enriches the knowledge of students to encourage protection and preservation of our water resources. To assist with this learning, the SFPUC offers a variety of education resources developed in partnership with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), municipal departments, community gardens and non-profit education organizations. Page 43

52 The SFPUC provides annual funding to the SFUSD's Conservation Connection Program for the design and implementation of a comprehensive environmental education program for underserved communities. The Program provides environmentally-themed workshops for educators and field trips for students. The SFPUC also provides funding to the Garden for the Environment, an organic community garden, to offer field trips to San Francisco schools. Each field trip includes a pre-trip classroom visits in which students are introduced to water conservation and pollution prevention concepts that they can practice at the garden. The SFPUC s education programs bring water conservation to San Francisco classrooms. In 2009, the SFPUC partnered with the San Francisco Department of Environment (SFE) to develop a water resources curriculum for San Francisco s 4th and 5th grade students that covers the history of San Francisco s water supply, the water cycle, drought, alternative water resources, and the importance of water conservation. The curriculum includes fact sheets, lesson plans, and activity sheets that meet California curriculum standards. Each year the curriculum is marketed to a wide network of educators and the SFPUC and SFE also provide classroom presentations. In 2011, the SFPUC established a partnership with the Tuolumne River Trust to conduct annual presentations on source water and conservation to City elementary schools. Together, the SFPUC s school education programs are expected to reach over 4,000 educators and students each year throughout San Francisco s public and private schools. Graywater and Rainwater Harvesting Programs The SFPUC s Water and Wastewater Enterprises have been working together to develop a framework to promote safe use of graywater in the City. This effort included development of a guidance manual for customers on how to design simple graywater systems and also launched a small laundry-to-landscape pilot program in 2011 for residential customers. The Wastewater Enterprise also administers a rain barrel and cistern discount program and provides technical assistance related to rain barrel installation. The program also developed stormwater design guidelines and provided technical assistance on swales, rainwater gardens, stormwater planters, green roofs, and permeable pavement that captures rainwater for irrigation purposes. Other Programs The SFPUC conducted a two-year pilot CII water-saving program between 2006 and It included identifying and providing technical support and funding for selected projects based on identified potential water savings. The SFPUC is now evaluating options for a longer-term grant program to customers with plans and resources to implement large CII water-saving retrofits. Pending budget availability, the SFPUC may launch the program in FY The SFPUC is underway with an Automated Water Meter Program (AWMP) to replace old water meters with automated water meters equipped with wireless meter reading technology for 178,000 meters over the next two years. The new water meters measures, collects and analyzes water usage more accurately and more frequently (on an hourly basis), which will allow the SFPUC and its customers to monitor water use and detect leaks faster without the need for physical field visits and manual meter readings. Conforming to the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (Assembly Bill 1881), San Francisco has replaced its previous irrigation ordinance (Chapter 63 of the San Francisco Administration Code) with a new Water Efficient Irrigation Ordinance in The new ordinance and companion rules expanded the water conservation requirements for outdoor water use in San Francisco. Under the new rules, new landscape projects and landscape modification projects over certain sizes must be installed, constructed, operated, and maintained using water-efficient irrigation techniques and increase the use of climate appropriate and low water use plants. Page 44

53 The SFPUC has also adopted a Commercial Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 77-09) in 2009, which requires all commercial buildings to install water efficient devices upon major improvements or by These programs are either new and have limited data to determine savings (such as the Water Efficient Irrigation Ordinance and the Commercial Water Conservation Ordinance) or too broad to quantify a water saving (such as the school education programs). Nevertheless, they are evidence that the SFPUC has implemented a very wide range of measures to save water, from conventional BMP-structured programs to innovative programs such as rainwater harvesting. The artificial turf program, which is now led by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, also demonstrate considerable water savings potential. As more participation level and savings data become available for these programs, future model updates may also include savings from these programs. Page 45

54 This page intentionally left blank. Page 46

55 6. RETAIL DEMAND PROJECTIONS This section presents the results of total retail demand projections. This step is highlighted in Figure 18. Figure 18: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Retail Demand Projections) Qualitative & Quantitative Evaluations Model Updates Savings & Unit Cost Projections Data Collection Calibration Goals, Progress, Future Actions Retail Demand Projections In-City retail demand projections were developed for three scenarios. Scenario 1: Baseline In-City Demand This scenario calculates the in-city demands in the absence of plumbing codes and the SFPUC conservation program. Under this scenario, the demands are entirely driven by population and employment growth only. Scenario 2: Adjusted In-City Baseline Demand This scenario calculates the in-city demands taking into consideration the estimated water savings due to federal and state plumbing efficiency codes and ordinances. These demands do not include the savings due to the SFPUC conservation program. Under this scenario, the demands are driven by population and employment growth, as well as codes and ordinances. Scenario 3: In-City Demand with Codes and Conservation Program This scenario calculates the in-city demands taking into consideration the estimated water savings due to both plumbing code changes and the implementation of the SFPUC conservation program. The difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 represents the water savings due to federal and state plumbing codes and ordinances (sometimes also referred to as passive water savings or code-driven savings ). The difference between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 represents the water savings due to the implementation of the SFPUC conservation program (sometimes also referred to as active water savings ). The model also developed these projections for each customer sectors: single-family, multi-family, and non-residential. Results are presented in Table 19 and discussed in the subsections below. Numbers that are discussed are also highlighted in the table for easy reference. Page 47

56 Table 19: SFPUC In-City Retail Demand Projections (mgd) Single-Family In-City Retail Demand Baseline Demand Savings from Codes Adjusted Baseline Demand Savings from Conservation Program (1) Demand w/ Codes & Conservation Program Savings from Codes & Conservation Program Multi-Family In-City Retail Demand Baseline Demand Savings from Codes Adjusted Baseline Demand Savings from Conservation Program (1) Demand w/ Codes & Conservation Program Savings from Codes & Conservation Program Non-Residential In-City Retail Demand Baseline Demand Savings from Codes Adjusted Baseline Demand Savings from Conservation Program (1) Demand w/ Codes & Conservation Program Savings from Codes & Conservation Program Other (mgd) Builders & Contractors, Docks & Shipping System Losses Total In-City Retail Demand (2) Baseline Demand Savings from Codes Adjusted Baseline Demand Savings from Conservation Program (1) Demand w/ Codes & Conservation Program Savings from Codes & Conservation Program Notes: (1) Savings from conservation measures is 0 mgd in 2005 because 2005 is set to be the starting point of the model runs. The zero savings does not reflect the water savings achieved from active water conservation measures prior to (2) Totals may show a difference of 0.1 mgd due to rounding. Page 48

57 Baseline In-City Demand The Baseline In-City Demand scenario calculates the in-city demand that is absent of plumbing efficiency codes and conservation program, and is driven by population and employment growth only. Under this scenario, total in-city retail demand is projected to increase from 80.2 mgd in 2005 to 96.8 mgd in 2035, an increase of 20.7 percent. The fluctuations in per capita demand are mainly caused by variation in the employment forecast. Adjusted Baseline In-City Demands The Adjusted Baseline In-City Demands scenario account for the effects of plumbing efficiency codes over time. It shows expected in-city retail demands given projected population and employment growth, codes and ordinances, but not implementation of the SFPUC conservation program. Under this scenario: Single-family residential demand decreases from 18.7 mgd to 15.8 mgd (approximately 15 percent) between 2005 and The reduction is driven by increased water use efficiency of toilets, clothes washers, and showerheads coupled with very limited growth in the number of single-family residential accounts. Multi-family residential demands do not change significantly over the forecast period. While per capita demand falls as a result of code effects, this is offset by the growth in the number of multifamily residential customers. Non-residential demands are projected to increase from 25.6 mgd to 29.9 mgd (approximately 17 percent) between 2005 and The increase is driven by increase of employment. While water use per employee is expected to decrease by 14 percent over the forecast period, total employment is projected to increase from 642,500 to 698,790 12, or 26 percent. Overall, adjusted baseline in-city retail demand is projected to increase from 78.0 mgd in 2005 to 79.7 mgd in 2035, an increase of 1.7 mgd, or 2.2 percent. The impact of plumbing efficiency codes is measured as the difference between the baseline and adjusted baseline projections. Code savings are 10.9 mgd by 2020 and 17.1 mgd by In-City Demand with Codes and the SFPUC Conservation Program The In-City Demand with Codes and the SFPUC Conservation Program scenario includes actual and projected conservation program implementation for the period of 2005 to The durations and annual activity levels of each conservation measures in the program were provided by the SFPUC staff. Conservation measures are assumed to operate through 2035 with the exception of single-family toilet measures, non-residential toilet and urinal measures, and single-family washer rebate measures, which end earlier because full market penetration is expected to be realized. The impact of the SFPUC conservation program is measured as the difference between the projections from this scenario and the projections from the Adjusted Baseline scenario. Conservation program water savings over the forecast period are: Single-family demands are reduced by 2.0 mgd by 2018 and by 1.8 mgd by Multi-family demands are reduced by 1.6 mgd by 2018 and by 2.2 mgd by Non-residential demands are reduced by 1.4 mgd by 2018 and by 2.0 mgd by Employment data are taken from Table 7 of the SFPUC Retail Demand Model Update and Calibration Technical Memorandum (Appendix A). 13 The reduction in active program water savings is a consequence of ending single-family toilet and washer programs prior to 2035 due to market saturation. Overall savings (the sum of code and program savings) between 2020 and 2035 increases, however, from 5.4 to 6.8 mgd. Page 49

58 Total conservation program water savings are 5.0 mgd in 2018 and 6.0 mgd in Updated conservation program water savings are approximately 30 percent higher in 2020 and 35 percent higher in 2030 than under the original model specification. The difference reflects changes in the mix, duration, and level of implementation of conservation measures in the updated model. Total Retail Demand Projection Total retail demands include all of the following demands: In-City retail demand Other retail customer demands, including San Francisco International Airport, US Navy, and other suburban/municipal accounts Groveland Community Services District (Groveland CSD) Lawrence Livermore Laboratory City irrigation demand, including irrigation at Golden Gate Park, Great Highway Median, and San Francisco Zoo Castlewood and Sunol Golf Course demands served by groundwater Results of the water demand forecasts show that the SFPUC s retail water demand will only slightly increase (Table 20), even though the household population in San Francisco is expected to increase by nearly 12 percent for the same period (year 2010 through year 2035). The projected increase in retail water demands is due to estimated growth in business and industry activity, which will translate into a commensurate increase in water use. The expected increase in water use within these sectors is, however, expected to be partially balanced by decreases in water use in the residential sector. The decreased water use forecast for the residential sectors is attributed primarily to market penetration of current plumbing codes within the residential sectors. Market penetration will increase as time progresses, resulting in an increase in water savings due to the installation of more water-efficient fixtures A decrease in water use can also be expected, in both the residential and non-residential sectors, as a result of water conservation programs (such as those discussed in Section 4). Page 50

59 Table 20: San Francisco Retail Water Demands Summary Water Use Entity 2010 (mgd) 2015 (mgd) 2020 (mgd) 2025 (mgd) 2030 (mgd) 2035 (mgd) In-City Demands (with plumbing codes and conservation) (1) Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Non Residential Other In-City Demands (2) Losses Subtotal (3) : 76.4 (4) Other Retail Demands Other Retail Customers (5) Lawrence Livermore Lab Groveland CSD City Irrigation Uses (6) Castlewood Community (7) Subtotal (3) : Total Retail Demand (3) : Notes: (1) In-City Demands shown in this table are projections generated by the Retail Demand Model. Projections are based on the scenario that takes into consideration the estimated savings due to both plumbing codes and the SFPUC-initiated conservation program. See Table 12 for actual water use in 2010 and how it compares to modeled water uses. (2) Other in-city demands consist of demands from the Builders and Contractors (B&S) and Docks & Shipping (D&S) customer accounts. A demand of 0.2 mgd is estimated based on historical water use. (3) The sums may show a difference of 0.1mgd due to rounding. (4) The actual in-city demands in FY was 71.4 mgd. (5) US Navy, San Francisco International Airport, and other suburban or municipal accounts. This does not include groundwater at Sunol and Castlewood. Demands are based on average use from FY (6) Irrigation at Golden Gate Park, Great Highway Median, and San Francisco Zoo. (7) 100 percent of Castlewood demand (0.4 mgd) and 75 percent of Sunol Golf course demand (0.3 mgd) is served by groundwater in Sunol. Projected demands are based on average use from and remain unchanged over the 25-year planning horizon Page 51

60 This page intentionally left blank.. Page 52

61 7. PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING GOALS This section presents the progress made toward meeting the goals outlined in Section 2. This step is highlighted in Figure 19. Figure 19: Conservation Program Analysis Process (Goals) Qualitative & Quantitative Evaluations Model Updates Savings & Unit Cost Projections Data Collection Calibration Goals, Progress, Future Actions Retail Demand Projections As noted earlier, the framework of the SFPUC s conservation program is guided by goals established in the following: WSIP: Achieve 4 mgd of active water savings by 2018 through the implementation of water conservation measures; CUWCC MOU: Comply with BMP requirements; and SB X7-7: Reduce per capita water use to below gpcd by 2015 and gpcd by As presented in the previous sections, the SFPUC s conservation measures are projected to achieve an active water savings of 5.0 mgd by This shows that the SFPUC is on track of meeting, and potentially exceeding, its WSIP goal of achieving 4 mgd of active water savings by At time of preparing this plan, the SFPUC is in the process of compiling data for its FY and FY BMP Reports. The SFPUC has implemented conservation measures that are in alignment with the BMPs, and expects that it will be in compliance with the BMP requirements. According to historic water use data and as documented in its 2010 UWMP, the SFPUC s 10-year average per capita water use is 98.4 gpcd, which is already below both the interim and final targets of and gpcd, respectively; therefore, the SFPUC is already in compliance with the SB X7-7 requirements. Moving forward, the SFPUC remains committed to implementing its conservation program as an important component of its water supply portfolio, and will continue its efforts to encourage retail water savings through conservation. Forecasts show a continued steady decline in estimated retail water use and per capita use water use with the continuation of conservation program. Future Updates to the Retail Demand Model and the Conservation Plan The level of funding, resources, and public participation for each conservation measure will change over time. As such, this Conservation Plan is intended to serve as a broad guidance document that will inform development of annual action plans and identify, staffing, resource and budget needs. Recommendations contained herein will be revisited and adapted as needed to meet the SFPUC s needs and to ensure that its conservation goals are met. Page 53

62 On an annual or more frequent basis, the SFPUC plans to review the model results against actual program activity to generate current water savings, costs, and demand projections. The SFPUC will also conduct major review and updates to the model and the Conservation Plan every five years, coinciding with its UWMP development. Page 54

63 8. REFERENCES 1. M.Cubed, SFPUC Retail Demand Model Update and Calibration Technical Memorandum. Prepared by David Mitchell. April 21, SFPUC, City and County of San Francisco Retail Water Demands and Conservation Potential. Prepared by Margaret A. Hannaford, P.E. and Hydroconsult, Inc. November SFPUC, Errata Sheet to the City and County of San Francisco Retail Water Demands and Conservation Potential. Prepared by Margaret A. Hannaford, P.E. and Hydroconsult, Inc. November SFPUC, Water Conservation Report December Page 55

64 This page intentionally left blank. Page 56

65 2011 RETAIL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FINAL JUNE 2011 Prepared by RMC Water and Environment