Achieving Household Water Use Efficiency Using Automated Metering Infrastructure

Transcription

1 Achieving Household Water Use Efficiency Using Automated Metering Infrastructure T. Allen Berthold, Ph.D. Texas A&M AgriLife, Texas Water Resources Institute 1

2 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND AND EXISTING SUPPLIES (ACRE-FEET PER YEAR) 25,000,000 20,000,000 Demand Supply 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000, Source: TWDB Texas State Water Plan 2012

3 Texas Water Demand Projections (acreft per year) Source: TWDB Texas State Water Plan

4 Recommended Water Management Strategies Source: TWDB Texas State Water Plan 2012

5 Annual average unit costs by strategy (dollars per acre foot) 2,500 2,000 First Online Year Year ,500 1, Municipal Conservation Surface Water Desalination New Major Reservoir Reuse Groundwater Desalination Seawater Desalination Source: TWDB Texas State Water Plan 2012

6 Municipal Conservation Concerns Conservation before Revenue Need to maintain water supplies Revenue before Conservation Need to sell water to maintain revenue 6

7 Benefits of Municipal Conservation Less need to search for new sources of water Increased supply reliability Can delay expensive infrastructure projects Reduce the treatment (water and wastewater) and conveyance costs Reduced energy usage Addressing community values and expectations of managing natural resources Improved perception that utility is taking all steps necessary Demonstrating water use efficiency to regulatory agencies Source: Water Conservation for Small and Medium Sized Municipalities: Green,

8 Drawbacks to Municipal Conservation Reduced revenues When revising future rates, account for lost revenue through conservation Could threaten use it or lose it water rights Conservation (e.g. rebate) programs can be expensive Source: Water Conservation for Small and Medium Sized Municipalities: Green,

9 Ongoing Municipal Conservation Tiered Billing Rates Customer Education (bill inserts, social media, public presentations, free landscape classes, make a rain barrel class,) Rebates (Residential Toilet Distribution Program/Showerhead Exchange Program, Smart Yard Irrigation Rebates) Irrigation Rules (Year round 10am to 6pm spray irrigation restriction, rain/freeze sensor requirement for commercial properties) Drought Contingency Measures (education, enforcement) Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) 9

10 Using Available Technology for Conservation AMI Provider Reduced meter reading costs Reduce water theft Detect meter tampering Improved meter accuracy Used administratively to see demands across city Improve Customer Service Detect leaks Reduce bill disputes/adjustments Improve billing efficiency Residential Know how much water is being used and when Set goals to reduce See changes over time Compare usage with others based on similar characteristics Lower water bills Identifying leaks 10

11 Current Project Funding State of Texas to Texas A&M AgriLife Project Duration two years, ends August 2015 Team members: Texas A&M University City of Round Rock City of Georgetown City of Arlington 11

12 Ongoing Project Research question: Can providing user feedback encourage water conservation Web portal with upcoming features: Daily/weekly s High usage alters Leak alerts Neighborhood Comparisons Neighborhood Comparisons Conservation Education Materials Customer Profile Indoor/Outdoor Use Estimates 12

13 Development Challenges Proprietary vendor software Up front database setup Important to get all fields Data off by hour (daylight savings time) Read date of meter for each bill date Missing data Calculate cost for each reading during the daily import so backfilling is difficult Causes confusion for users Upload/download times being synchronized 13

14 Sign In Page 14

15 Billing Period Home Screen 15

16 Daily Usage 16

17 Hourly Usage 17

18 My Profile 18

19 High Usage Alert 19

20 Current Project ~800 current users signed up at various times since Identifying differences in treatment and control groups Identifying Pre and Post Usage Identifying differences of usage within participants 20

21 Preliminary Results Treatment vs Control Treatment Vs Control Group Population comparison since Jan 1 p =.005 Treatment M = 92,484, SD = 69,910, n = 225 Control 1 M = 72,620, SD = 160,398, n = 4,478 Control 2 M = 70,734, SD = 58,558, n = 4,478 Control 3 M = 75,396, SD = 218,739, n = 4,478 Control N = 17,912 Before Vs After Usage Same number of days before signing up as after p =.001 Before M = 42,128, SD = 36,749, N = 716 After M = 34,431, SD = 31,834, N =

22 Preliminary Results Historical Use Comparison Total Usage (gallons) M SD t df p July Historic 2,554,524 17,863 14,713 July Current 1,674,879 11,712 10,915 Difference 879, August Historic 6,036,196 15,801 12,564 August Current 5,307,678 13,894 11,813 Difference 728, September 5,766,450 11,196 10,580 Historic September Current 6,029,321 11,707 10,282 Difference 262, October Historic 4,548,258 8,269 7,048 October Current 5,328,509 9,688 9,035 Difference 780,

23 Limitations Only 4 months of data to date Analysis does not control for weather and other variables Unsure of all household characteristics Limited to voluntary usage of web portal Confusion of participants between usage portal and billing portal Only 2 years total for project 23

24 Next Steps Continue data collection, analyze water, climate, and survey results Continue expanding research with interested water providers Produce Extension Guidebooks Adopting AMI Developing User Profiles for Targeting Conservation Programs Host AMI workshops across Texas Develop Administrative Dashboard Conduct Evaluation of City Conservation Program 24

25 Questions? T. Allen Berthold, Ph.D. Texas A&M AgriLife, Texas Water Resources Institute 25