The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3654ORDINANCE NO. 9& T AN ORDINANCE of the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, amending the 2002 Water System Plan adopted by Ordinance No 3606 to include the city's June 3, 2003, Water Conservation Potential Assessment. WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Health requires the city to prepare a Water System Plan and update the Plan every 6 years, and WHEREAS, the city's 2002 Water System Plan was adopted in June 2002, and is a compilation of planning and engineering analyses conducted to determine the adequacy of the city's water system to meet existing and projected requirements for provision of domestic and fire protection service within the city's established water service area; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Tacoma Pipeline 5 Second Supply Project, the city was required to conduct a Water Conservation Potential Assessment, and WHEREAS, the Water Conservation Potential Assessment was completed on June 3, 2003 and, accordingly, it is appropriate to amend the city's Water System Plan to include the conservation provisions of the assessment, NOW THEREFORE, 1 2002 Water System Plan — Water Conservation Potential Assessment THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. - Amendment. Chapter 4 of the city's 2002 Water System Plan, entitled "Conservation Program," is amended to also include the June 3, 2003, Water Conservation Potential Assessment, attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A " The conservation measures established in the Water Conservation Potential Assessment shall be to addition to those measures already established in the 2002 Water System Plan. SECTION 2. - Severabalaty. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance SECTION 3. - Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by ATTEST- APPROVED AS TO FORM ,Xai)� 156 TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTO Y MA 2 2002 Water System Plan — Water Conservation Potential Assessment PASSED: day of August, 2003 APPROVED day of August, 2003 PUBLISHED day of August, 2003. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No A01 1 passed by the city council of the city of Kent, Washington, and approved by the mayor of the city of Kent as hereon indicated. P\Cw&Ordm CkWsterCommxloOot o mtkswss=nt- 0 3 d )&� 92�� C-6� (SEAL) BRENDA JACOB141k, CITY CLERK 3 2002 Water System Plan — Water Conservation Potential Assessment City of Kent Water Conservation Potential Assessment June 3, 2003 40 \NI4417 KENT WASHINGTON Department of Public Works Don E. Wickstrom, P E, Director 220 4"' Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 EXHIBIT Economic and Engineering Services, Inc dimsBellevueMount Vernon Olympia Portland Tn-QUes City of Kent Water Conservation Potential Assessment June 3, 2003 Prepared for: City of Kent Department of Public Works Don E. Wickstrom, P.E., Director 2204 th Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 Prepared By: Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 626 Columbia Street, NW, Suite 2a Olympia, WA 08901 98507-0976 (360)352-5090 I I r�Table of Gc June 3, 2003 I Table of Contents 1 ' City of Kent k.0 03 112kp. c 7 Introduction 2 Summary of Findings 3 Demographic Data and Projections 4 Water Use Characteristics in City of Kent Service Area 4.1 Connections....................................................... ..................... ....4-1 4.2 Total Water Production......................................................................... ...4-2 4.3 Non -Revenue Water ...................... .... . ...... .. .... ............................. ................ 4.4 Water Demand by Customer Class ...................................................... 4-4 4-5 5 Existing Conservation Program 5.1 Conservation Activities Addressing Customer Use .................. ............... .5-1 52 Water System Measures to Improve Efficiency ......................................... 5-5 6 Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 61 General Residential and Commercial Conservation Measures.. .... ...... 6.2 Conservation Measures Associated with Industrial Processes .......................... 6-1 6-6 6.2.1 Estimated Water Savings for Industrial Process Water .................. .. 6-7 6.2.2 Estimated Costs for Conservation Involving Industrial Process Water.. 6-8 6.3 Avoided Cost Comparison ............................................... .... ..... 6-9 6.4 Screening by Cost-effectiveness and Water Savings ..... ........................ 6-10 6.5 Conservation Savings Realized through Water Efficient Plumbing Code.. 6.51 Residential Code Savings. .... ...... ..... ......................... .6-12 6-12 6 5 2 Non-residential Code Savings .. .......... . .......................... .6-13 7 6.5 3 Total Code Savings ........ ........................... ... .. .. Data Required for Conservation Evaluation of Second Supply 6-13 Project Agreement Implementation Appendices A. Data and Methodology for Calculating Water Usage by Customer Class B. Measure Descriptions I Table of Contents 1 ' City of Kent k.0 03 112kp. c June 3, 2003 1 5-1 Consumption per Single Family Account 1993-2001 .................................... 5-5 Table of Contents II City of Kent ki rz-03-11V� doc 2-1 Summary of Potential Water Savings ......... ... ............... ............................... 2-2 3-1 Population and Employment ........................................................................ 3-1 4-1 Past and Projected Water Production .................................. ........................... 4-3 4-2 Monthly Production — 2000 .......... .............................. ..... 4-4 5-1 5-2 City of Kent's Conservation Program Summary ........ ..... . ....................... City of Kent's Water System Measures that Lead to More Efficient Water Use ........ 5-2 5-6 6-1 Estimated Water Savings and Costs for Identified Conservation Actions ................... 6-3 6-2 Unit Costs Derived from Consortium Report ............................... ................ 6-9 6-3 Measures Offering the Greatest Conservation Opportunities .......... ................ 6-11 64 6-5 Estimate of Plumbing Code Savings from Residential Toilets .................... .. ....6-13 Estimate of Plumbing Code Savings from Commercial Toilets ............................ 6-14 7-1 Data Requirements to Support MOA Evaluation Methodology .................... ..... 7-2 Exhibits 4-1 Number of Connections: Total and by Type of Customer ... ................................ 4-1 4-2 Rstoncal and Projected Average Day, Average Summer Day, and Peak Day Production. ............................ I .......................................... . ....... 4-2 4-3 Amount of Revenue and Non -Revenue Water Produced .......................... . ........ 4-5 44 Comparison of Water Sold During 2000 to Water Sold During Summer 2000 by Customer Class ........................................................................ ........ .4-6 4-5 4-6 2000 Total Water Sold .................................. ........... .. ............ ......... 2000 Monthly Water Sold - Largest Customer Class ................ .................... .4-7 4-8 4-7 2000 Monthly Water Sold - Other Customer Classes and Lawn Irrigation ........... ....4-9 1 5-1 Consumption per Single Family Account 1993-2001 .................................... 5-5 Table of Contents II City of Kent ki rz-03-11V� doc I L' June 3, 2003 This technical memorandum presents the results of a Conservation Potential Assessment performed for the City of Kent (Kent) by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc (EES) The purpose of the Conservation Potential Assessment is to evaluate the potential water savings and associated costs for conservation measures that could be undertaken between year 2003 and year 2010 These conservation water savings would be in addition to those realized by Kent since beginning their ongoing conservation program in 1993. This Conservation Potential Assessment fulfills the terms for an evaluation of this kind, stated in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among Kent, its partners in Tacoma's Second Supply Project (SSP), the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The MOA was signed in 2001. At the outset of this assessment, it was determined that use would be made of pre-existing, regional -scale information on conservation measures, as applied to the Kent service area Therefore, this should be considered a coarse -scale assessment to determine estimated overall savings and costs and screen potential measures. Further refinement, especially of cost figures, should be performed to establish firm budgets prior to implementing the conservation measures discussed herein The information in this technical memorandum is organized as follows: ■ Summary of Findings ■ Demographic Data and Projections ■ Water Use Characteristics in Kent Service Area ■ Existing Conservation Program ■ Conservation Potential within Kent Service Area ■ Data Required for Conservation Evaluation Implementation of Second Supply Project Agreement Section 1 -Introduction 1-1 ' City of Kent ke.V2-03 iiv�a I S I� I I June 3, 2003 The City of Kent has had a water conservation program in place since 1993. The program involves an extensive array of measures targeting commercial, industrial and residential demand, as well as City facilities. A total of 72 additional or expanded water conservation measures were evaluated as a part of this effort, using data from available studies in the Pacific Northwest Of the 72 measures reviewed, 28 appear to offer the best opportunities for water conservation. These are measures that offer potential savings of at least 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) during the summer season, and cost less than $6 00 per 1,000 gallons of water saved over the lifetime of the measure The $6.00 threshold was developed by estimating the "avoided cost" of both water production by the City of Kent and wastewater disposal to the King County Metro system. Total potential savings for this suite of conservation measures are 614,000 gpd on an average, year round basis. Total potential savings are 834,000 gpd on an average daily basis during the summer season Since average daily demand during the summer season is projected to be 14 48 mgd in year 2010, this represents summer water savings of approximately 5 8% by year 2010 Additional water savings can be achieved through attention to industrial process water. Based on published sources, it was assumed that industrial process water savings can amount to a 10% reduction in total water sold to industrial customers. This amounts to approximately 90,000 gpd on an average day basis during the summer season. This is approximately 0 6% of total summer season production in year 2010. Another area for water savings is the continued implementation of the 1993 plumbing code, which affects efficiency of plumbing fixtures throughout the Kent service area The total estimated savings from the plumbing code amount to approximately 200,000 gpd between years 2003 and 2010 This amount would be the same on a year round basis as during the summer season Compared with the projected summer season production of 14 48 mgd, this is equivalent to approximately 14% summer water savings in year 2010. Water system measures to reduce non -revenue water were also reviewed The City already has implemented a range of measures to control non -revenue water Based on EES' experience, it is not unusual for water systems to have non -revenue water in the range of 10-15%. Non -revenue water is currently less than 5% of total water produced Non -revenue water is an inherent element of water system management which can never be eliminated entirely. While the City should continually strive for improvement, additional savings in this area would be difficult and are not estimated here Table 2-1 summarizes total potential water savings from the elements discussed in this Conservation Potential Assessment. Section 2 - Summary of Findings 2-t City of Kent �v-031MpP m June 3, 2003 Category Savings in % of Total Production Savings in gpd % of Total Production Measures 1n single-family, multifamily and 614,000 53% 834,000 58% commercial sectors Industrial Process Water 72,500 06% 90,000 06% Code Savings 200.000 17% 200.000 14% Total Potential Savings 886.500 7.6% 1.124.000 7.8% Section 2. Summary of Findings City of Kent 2-2 k,.U2-03 111kFw June 3, 2003 In order to determine how to focus conservation efforts, it is important to evaluate the composition of Kent's customer base and how the water supply is used. Table 3-1 presents historical and projected growth of Kent's drinking water customers. According to Kent's 2002 Water System Plan (draft), between 1988 and 1996, the growth rate was 2.36% per year, calculated as a simple (not compound) growth rate. Year 2000 and future population projections were calculated based on information available through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). This information reflects findings of the 2000 United States Census as well as geographical differences between Kent's city limits and water service area. These population estimates indicate a compounded growth rate of less than 1% per year between 2000 and 2020. This projection of significantly lower growth likely reflects the fact that in the last decade or so, many areas in the Kent service area have been built out to their land use capacity. 1990 1994 2000 2003 2010 2020 Population 40,877 44,875 59,493 60,886 64,135 70,299 Single -Family Households N/A 8,324 tai 8,849 (4) 9,167 0l 9,909 (6) 11,281 (6) Multi -Family Households N/A 14,108 rel 14,889 ts3 15,908 16,796 (6) 19,121 (6) Employment N/A 53,787 (9) 55,717 iii 56,520 cn 58,934 i30 64,074 tat Estimate derived by assuming an annual growth rate between 1988 and 1996 to be 2 36% per Kent's 2002 Water System Plan (draft) Untitled tabular mformauon summarizing residential, commercial, and unaccounted for water (1993 - 1999) provided by City of Kent 3/03 Estimate made using PSRC data for area, includes 2000 Census information Kent's most recent estimate Spreadsheet provided by City of Kent 3103 entitled "Kent water supply pipeline 5 stats 3 " Estimate made by subtracting the number of single family accounts (4) from PSRC estimate of total households (3) This value corresponds well with an estimate of 14,427 from Pipeline 5 documentation Estimate made using PSRC estimate of total households (3) and assuming the ratio of single to multi -family households remains similar to that of 2000 (about 59%) Derived through interpolation between 2000 and 2010 PSRC estimates Assumption that the ratio of single to multi -family households remains similar to that of 2000 Assume growth rate between 1993 - 2000 equals rate between 2000 and 2010 Section 3 - Demographic Data and Projections 3-1 City of Kent nava 03 112k .m June 3,2003 4.1 Connections Exhibit 4-1 presents the number of connections, or accounts, from 1993 through 2001. This information does not reflect the number of households or consumers served by each account or the amount of water consumed. However, it does indicate that single family accounts make up about 72% of all accounts. Exhibit 4-1 Number of Connections: Total and by Type of Customer 15,000- 12,500 w C 0 10,000 --- U 7,500 ��---_--- -- w 0 5,000 z 2,500 _ - — - - — - — - 0 r 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year — — Single Family Residential — — Mufti -Family Residential —Total — - - Commercial Accounts Source UnLtled table summarizing residential and commercial accounts, received from City of Kent, March 2003 Note There is a discrepancy between 1994 and 1995, but these data can not be reviewed to determine the cause Overall, the number of accounts grew at a compounded rate of about 2.5% per year Multi- family residential accounts grew at the fastest rate, 3.2% (compounded) growth per year. section 4 - Water Use Characteristics In City of Kent service Area 41 City of Kent k.V2-03-IlZti d. I I 11 I I I LJ n June 3, 2003 Commercial accounts increased by 2.9% compounded per year and the total number of residential (single family and multi -family) accounts grew at about 2.4% compounded per year. Most recently, the growth rate of total connections has slowed down. Between 1999 and 2001, annual growth in the number of connections was less than 1%. Commercial accounts increased at the fastest compounded rate, of about 1.5%. 4.2 Total Water Production Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-1 present information on Kent's past and projected water production Production is the total of all water produced from the sources by Kent and accounts not only for water Kent provides to customers, but also non -revenue water, which may have been used to conduct system maintenance or lost through leakage Exhibit 4.2 Historical and Projected Average Day, Average Summer Day, and Peak Day Production section 4 - Water Use Characteristics in City of Kant Service Area 42 City of Ken! knvz.o3 1 • 30 c ua • ' � 25 V Drought 20 E 15 10 IL 5 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year — - -A%g Day A%g Summer Day - - Peak Day • Atg Summer Day (projected) • ft Day (projected) • Peak Day (Projected) section 4 - Water Use Characteristics in City of Kant Service Area 42 City of Ken! knvz.o3 1 • 2001 • ' � • .. Past data were obtained from Kent's production records. "Average Daily Production" is the annual amount of water produced by Kent divided by the number of days per year. "Peak Day Production" is the maximum amount of water produced by Kent on a single day during the given year Generally, the peak day of each year occurs in August. However, in 1993, the peak day occurred in the beginning of September and in 1994, the peak day occurred in mid-July. I I I June 3, 2003 For purposes of this Conservation Potential Assessment, it is desirable to evaluate demands during the summer season. "Average Summer Day" is an important statistic in the MOA discussed in the Introduction. This value is calculated in this technical memorandum as the total amount of water produced between June 1 and September 30 divided by 122 days. This was selected as the summer season because demands increase significantly and dry weather occurs during this period of time. 2010 1158 1448 20 49 2020 14.06 1758 2489 ' Historic Average Day Production information was provided by Kent 3-25-03, entitled "5yr monthly for ees," Projected average day productions are from City of Kent 2002 Water Supply Plan (draft) z Historical calculations made from spreadsheet provided by Kent 3-25-03, entitled "5yr monthly for ees," Projections were based on the assumption that the average summer day would have a 25% higher production than the average day, year round, consistent with recent production data. 3 Historical numbers provided in communication with Ron Halverson, 3-26-03, projected peak day data are from City of Kent 2002 Water Supply Plan (draft) Projected peak and average day production for the entire system were obtained from Kent's 2002 Water System Plan (draft). The projected peak day projections are Kent's medium estimates. Future average summer day projections were estimated based on the projected average day production. Bstorlcally, average summer day production was about 125% of average day production The projection shown in Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-1 assumes this trend will continue The Puget Sound Region experienced a winter drought, that led to water supply shortages in 2001. The Kent City Council declared a Water Shortage Emergency, which was effective from April 17 through October 1 of 2001 Watering restrictions were implemented during this time This directly impacted Kent's production as shown on Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-1, reducing average day production by 9%. Average summer day and peak day productions were reduced by 16%, because restrictions, such as lawn watering restrictions, take effect during the summer period As Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-1 show, average production did not return to previous levels in 2002, although peak day production was higher than that of 2000 The economic down turn that began in 2001 and continued through 2002 also affected water use and production in those years Table 4-2 contains the total production for each month of 2000 This displays the seasonal pattern of demand, on a system -wide basis. In 2000, average per capita water production for the entire system was 141 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). During the summer, per capita water production rose to 177 gpcd. These calculations were made using the population information presented in Table 3-1 and production data for 2000, located in Table 4-2. For residential consumption alone, water use was 203 Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics In City of Kent Service Area 43 City of Kent kn-03-]]VcpL « Average Day Production` Average Summer Day` Peak Day Production' Year (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 1990 955 N/A 1497 2000 842 1054 1374 2001 777 904 1188 2002 786 1001 1481 2010 1158 1448 20 49 2020 14.06 1758 2489 ' Historic Average Day Production information was provided by Kent 3-25-03, entitled "5yr monthly for ees," Projected average day productions are from City of Kent 2002 Water Supply Plan (draft) z Historical calculations made from spreadsheet provided by Kent 3-25-03, entitled "5yr monthly for ees," Projections were based on the assumption that the average summer day would have a 25% higher production than the average day, year round, consistent with recent production data. 3 Historical numbers provided in communication with Ron Halverson, 3-26-03, projected peak day data are from City of Kent 2002 Water Supply Plan (draft) Projected peak and average day production for the entire system were obtained from Kent's 2002 Water System Plan (draft). The projected peak day projections are Kent's medium estimates. Future average summer day projections were estimated based on the projected average day production. Bstorlcally, average summer day production was about 125% of average day production The projection shown in Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-1 assumes this trend will continue The Puget Sound Region experienced a winter drought, that led to water supply shortages in 2001. The Kent City Council declared a Water Shortage Emergency, which was effective from April 17 through October 1 of 2001 Watering restrictions were implemented during this time This directly impacted Kent's production as shown on Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-1, reducing average day production by 9%. Average summer day and peak day productions were reduced by 16%, because restrictions, such as lawn watering restrictions, take effect during the summer period As Exhibit 4-2 and Table 4-1 show, average production did not return to previous levels in 2002, although peak day production was higher than that of 2000 The economic down turn that began in 2001 and continued through 2002 also affected water use and production in those years Table 4-2 contains the total production for each month of 2000 This displays the seasonal pattern of demand, on a system -wide basis. In 2000, average per capita water production for the entire system was 141 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). During the summer, per capita water production rose to 177 gpcd. These calculations were made using the population information presented in Table 3-1 and production data for 2000, located in Table 4-2. For residential consumption alone, water use was 203 Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics In City of Kent Service Area 43 City of Kent kn-03-]]VcpL « IJune 3, 2003 gallons per household per day (gphd) in the single-family category, and 160 gphd in the muln- family category. Using an estimated number of 2.5 persons per household, these residential sector water uses amount to approximately 81 gpcd (single-family) and 64 gpcd (multi -family.) ' 000 Mouth Production (gallons) January 223531,000 February 203,137,000 March 216,964,000 April 204,004,000 May 264,142,000 June 279,552,000 July 349,261,000 August 371,734,000 September 285,405,000 October 255,564,000 November 216,605,000 December 202,497,000 1 4.3 Non -Revenue Water 1 Non -revenue water is water that is produced but not billed to customers. This can include a variety of beneficial uses, such as flushing of water mains, firefighting, reservoir maintenance, and treatment plant uses, as well as system losses from leakage, unauthorized uses, etc. Exhibit 4-3 displays non -revenue water. Before 1997, more than 10% of water produced was non - revenue This has been reduced over the years, and in 2002, less than 5% of water produced was non -revenue. Based on EES' experience, it is not unusual for water systems to have non -revenue water in the range of 10-15%. Kent's non -revenue water is very low by comparison Where data are available, non -revenue water can be separated into two categories, accounted -for and unaccounted-for. This breakdown was provided for 2000, 2001 and 2002. Kent indicates that the amount of non -revenue water that can be accounted for represents water used for draining and cleaning reservoirs, during repair of mains, backwashmg of the treatment plant, flushing, sewer and storm cleaning, fire department testing, and a leak in the Kent Springs Transmission Main The leak, which is estimated to be about 55 gallons per minute, composes on average 83% of the annual accounted -for non -revenue water since 1999. The total non -revenue data were included in an untitled tabular information summarizing ' residential, commercial, and unaccounted for water (1993 - 1999) provided by Kent in March 2003 Kent included additional detail in supporting information to a spreadsheet entitled "Kent water supply pipeline 5 stats 3." Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics in City of Kent Service Area 44 City of Kent kc.a-03-1IU . June 3, 2003 4.4 Water Demand by Customer Class Kent, through their billing system, has separated their customers into classes according to type of customer, location (inside or outside of Kent city limits), and type of use (sprinkler and non- spnnkler). Accounts have been separated into these categories- CommerciaUResidentialMusmess: Residential with home business Exhibit 43 Amount of Revenue and Non -Revenue Produced Commercial General: 100%_- Industrial: Manufacturing 90 Multi -Family Residential: Apartment complexes with more than 4 units 80% Single family housing E Apartment complexes with 4 units or less Residential, low income senior rates City of Kent: All City facilities 70% Government King County facilities O 60% Schools (15 served by Kent) ■Accounted for Non -Revenue L of investigating potential conservation options is an understanding of how water is used. These customer classes provide further insight into which measures should be considered for implementation. Exhibit 4-4 presents graphs showing the % of all water sold to each customer class for all of 2000 and summer of 2000 (June through to Unaccounted for 3 50% ® Total Non -Revenue 40% love -a3 -112J .� ■ Revenue Water Produced Q 0 30% 20% 10% 0% 9bcp ,�e ,�40 ,COO X41 .�01 ,�0 ry6 ti6 �IZ&I Year 4.4 Water Demand by Customer Class Kent, through their billing system, has separated their customers into classes according to type of customer, location (inside or outside of Kent city limits), and type of use (sprinkler and non- spnnkler). Accounts have been separated into these categories- CommerciaUResidentialMusmess: Residential with home business 1 Commercial General: Strip malls and businesses Industrial: Manufacturing Multi -Family Residential: Apartment complexes with more than 4 units Single Family Residential: Single family housing Duplex : Lifeline: Apartment complexes with 4 units or less Residential, low income senior rates City of Kent: All City facilities ' Government King County facilities School: Schools (15 served by Kent) An especially important aspect of investigating potential conservation options is an understanding of how water is used. These customer classes provide further insight into which measures should be considered for implementation. Exhibit 4-4 presents graphs showing the % of all water sold to each customer class for all of 2000 and summer of 2000 (June through Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics In City of Kant Service Area 45 City of Kent love -a3 -112J .� I I I I I I June 3, 2003 September). The figure shows all of the water used inside and outside city limits and sprinkler and non-spnnkler use for the four primary customer classes and an "other" category. The tables below each graph present a further break -down of the customer classes within the "other" category. As the exhibit demonstrates, the proportion of water used by each customer class changes very little during the summer in comparison with year-round use. This indicates that most of Kent's water customers increase their water use during the summer and that all customers could be targeted for reducing peak season use. In 2000, 98% of water sold was used within the city limits of Kent. Exhibit 4-4 Comparison of Water Sold During 2000 to Water Sold During Summer 2000 by Data used to develop the graphs in Exhibits 4-4 through 4-7 and discussed in the remainder of this section originated from an untitled table of customer billing information for 2000 — 2002 received from Kent in March 2003 These data were provided in monthly and bi-monthly amounts and were manipulated to produce approximate monthly water use in each category. Attachment A provides detailed information on how the information in this discussion was developed and provides monthly amounts of water used for each customer category in 2000 ' The year 2000 was selected as a benchmark because of the initiation of the SSP agreement between parties and because it can be considered a normal year in comparison with the drought year in 2001 and the unstable economic conditions in the Puget Sound Region of 2002. Exhibit 4-5 presents the amount of water sold, in millions of gallons, during each month of 2000 The graph demonstrates that water increases significantly during the summer season. Forty percent of water sold during the entire year was sold between June 1 and September 30. Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics in City of Kent Service Area 4.6 City of Kent keor203 ltvop.m Customer Class, Year 2000 Water Sold - Customer Class Summer, Year 2000 Water Sold - Customer Class 0 8% 7% 0 3% 02% 0 6% O6% 13% 1 9% ■ Commemal General �% ■ Commemral General 0096 33% 2�' 23% ■ mtluslnal ■ Industrial o Mult4Famlly o M W IFFsmily a Single Family ■ Single Family ■ Omer 9% ■ Other 9% 30% 20%Ity Full Year rKent hool 15ource UnUded table of widomer billing InformsUon for 2000-2001 received from Cay of Kara 2.14-02 -Summer 0 Rewnw —or rat Revenue 0 8% 07% 0 3% 02% 0 6% O6% 13% 1 9% 2 2% 27% 0096 'Other'Category -Summer Class —or rat Revenue ommeraaYResidentlaU 8uaneas 07% Du x 02% LrlaLere O6% of Kent 1 9% Oovermnent 27% od 12% I June 3, 2003 Exhibit 4-5 2000 Total Water Sold' 'Source umbkd table of uatomer blllbl0 Infomrilen for 2000-2001 melred from Clty of Kent 3.78-03. The graphs in Exhibit 4-6 (all) and Exhibit 4-7 (a, b, and c) present monthly water sales during 2000 to the four largest classes of water users (Commercial General, Industrial, Multi -Family Residential, and Single Family Residential) and the City, Government, and Schools, respectively The summer months have been delineated in each of the graphs As discussed earlier, each of these graphs shows that water use increases significantly in the summer for all customer classes. Since Kent is focused on reducing their production during the summer months, an evaluation of outdoor water use, which occurs primarily in the summer is valuable Some customer classes ' have meters to track irrigation water use separately from indoor water use. Graphs in Exhibits 4-6 and 4-7 present information on monthly general and irrigation metered use. Exhibit 4-7(d) presents the monthly lawn irrigation use for the Commercial General, Industrial, Multi -family, City of Kent, and Schools during 2000. Exhibit 4-7(d) shows the same irrigation meter data as that in the graphs in Exhibit 4-6 and 4-7 (a, b, and c). However, this exhibit presents a customer class comparison of irrigation water use. This exhibit does not capture the irrigation use of some I I categories, such as single family residential, because all water use is tracked by a single meter for these customers Additionally, not all customers in the classes shown in Exhibit 4-7(d) have an irrigation meter. The largest users of sprinklers were the Commercial General, Multi -family, and City of Kent Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics in City of Kant Service Area 4-7 City of Kent eve4)3 112A p c , , „ ■100'.'.1■rl C11111111111I 1111"""11 ...IIIIII..11 ■■■■■■■■■■■I ........... 1 'Source umbkd table of uatomer blllbl0 Infomrilen for 2000-2001 melred from Clty of Kent 3.78-03. The graphs in Exhibit 4-6 (all) and Exhibit 4-7 (a, b, and c) present monthly water sales during 2000 to the four largest classes of water users (Commercial General, Industrial, Multi -Family Residential, and Single Family Residential) and the City, Government, and Schools, respectively The summer months have been delineated in each of the graphs As discussed earlier, each of these graphs shows that water use increases significantly in the summer for all customer classes. Since Kent is focused on reducing their production during the summer months, an evaluation of outdoor water use, which occurs primarily in the summer is valuable Some customer classes ' have meters to track irrigation water use separately from indoor water use. Graphs in Exhibits 4-6 and 4-7 present information on monthly general and irrigation metered use. Exhibit 4-7(d) presents the monthly lawn irrigation use for the Commercial General, Industrial, Multi -family, City of Kent, and Schools during 2000. Exhibit 4-7(d) shows the same irrigation meter data as that in the graphs in Exhibit 4-6 and 4-7 (a, b, and c). However, this exhibit presents a customer class comparison of irrigation water use. This exhibit does not capture the irrigation use of some I I categories, such as single family residential, because all water use is tracked by a single meter for these customers Additionally, not all customers in the classes shown in Exhibit 4-7(d) have an irrigation meter. The largest users of sprinklers were the Commercial General, Multi -family, and City of Kent Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics in City of Kant Service Area 4-7 City of Kent eve4)3 112A p c I i 1 i 1 June 3, 2003 Exhibit 4-6 2000 Monthly Water Sold -Largest Customer Classes' tzo +zo tao +oo - It e S b i� 0 atanm MaMM1 • aw9nl MNw a a�Mn WYr •Owvtl MYwelm� Mtlw a) Commercial General Class b) Industrial Class s§w c) Mufti -Family Residential Class d) Single Family Residential Class (general meters only) +Source Untimed table of customer bliling Information for 2000- 2001 received from City of Kent 3-18-U As expected, the graph indicates that maximum sprinkler water use occurs during the summer season In 2000, 78% of sprinkler water use occurred between June 1 and September 30. Metered irrigation use represented 7.5% of water sold during August and 3% of all water sold during 2000. ' Section 4 • Water Use Characteristics in City of Kant Service Aran 4-8 City of Kent lxMn 03 f 12f ad. I I I r 1 r I I r r Exhibit 4-7 2000 Water Sold -Other Customer Classes and Lawn Irrigation' a) City of Kent June 3, 2003 _� ...` o......o....,.o�o rya .a. a.....,....o c) c) Schools d) Lawn Irrigation* 'Sours Untitled tabla of custumar b00n0 Inform ilm for 2000-2001 r h*d from City of Kam 318-07 •aoposts Oats tram Exhibit 46 (a, b, and c) and Exhibit 47 (a Md c) ' Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics In City of Kent Service Area 4.9 City of Kent kcnV2_03.1121cp , ■ �� ■ ■ ■ Omni June 3, 2003 _� ...` o......o....,.o�o rya .a. a.....,....o c) c) Schools d) Lawn Irrigation* 'Sours Untitled tabla of custumar b00n0 Inform ilm for 2000-2001 r h*d from City of Kam 318-07 •aoposts Oats tram Exhibit 46 (a, b, and c) and Exhibit 47 (a Md c) ' Section 4 - Water Use Characteristics In City of Kent Service Area 4.9 City of Kent kcnV2_03.1121cp , I C] i� I 1 June 3, 2003 5.1 Conservation Activities Addressing Customer Use Kent began its conservation program in 1993. The first year, the program consisted of public education, distribution of conservation kits, implementing metering on all accounts, leak detection, and the first seasonal pricing structure Table 5-1 summarizes Kent's conservation efforts since 1993 and their future conservation plans. Kent's original goals were to decrease water use by 6.5% between 1993 and 1995 and to realize an 8% reduction between 1993 and 2000 According to Kent's 2002 Water System Plan (draft), water use per connection, including all customer classes, decreased by 12% between 1993 and 1999. However, a comprehensive evaluation of savings attributable to water conservation program has not been performed. ' Evaluating water use of single family accounts may provide better control to determine whether use per account is increasing or decreasing, though it does not present the entire picture for Kent. Exhibit 5-1 presents consumption per account for Kent's single family accounts from 1993 — 2001. As the graph shows, in most years, consumption per account decreased. Between 1993 and 2000, per account consumption decreased by about 9 gallons per day per account, or ,lust over 4%. An additional reduction occurred from 2000 to 2001. However, 2001 was a drought year, and regional publicity as well as local watering restrictions were likely to be a significant, short-term factor in consumption for that year. Kent's current goal is to reduce average water use per connection by 2% per year As part of the Second Supply Project Agreement, Kent is working with the other members of the agreement to reduce per capita summer water production by 10% collectively between years 2000 and 2010 ' In addition to measures shown on the table, the City conducted water audits of the 20 largest commercial/industrial water users in 2002. These audits provided customers with a summary of ' potential conservation measures and recommendations to proceed with a more detailed audit or to proceed directly with implementation of the measures. The results of this study for selected customers are discussed later in Section 6.2.1. Kent sets aside funds in its budgets specifically for public education, technical assistance, system measures, and incentives and/or other measures associated with its conservation program. ' Between 1997 and 2002, annual allocations for the program have ranged from $11,600 to $93,000. The budget for 2003 through 2005 has already been established as well, with allocations of about $44,000 on average for each year. These allocations also include the ' designation of funds for a 50% full time equivalent staff (FTE). ' Section 5 - Existing Conservation Program 5.1 City of Kent W.0 03 112k . c I 1 I I I June 3, 2003 Section 5 - Existing Conservation Program 5.2 City of Kent k®✓ 03 1Mcpd Table 5-1 City of Kent's Conservation Program Summary Measures 1993.2000 2001 2002.2010 Public education/lnlormation Newsletter Four times per year Three times per year Occasionally Water hotline -status of water supply/restrictions Ongoing Ongoing Consumption history on bill Implemented 1998 Ongoing Ongoing Water bill inserts -conservation Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing programstincentwes, etc Demonstration garden (2) native plant demonstration Constructed 2000 Ongoing Ongoing low water use plantsidrip Construction 2001 Ongoing irrigation demonstration site Media advertising Run newspaper ads Ongoing Ongoing Public eventsilibrary displays Numerous events Ongoing Ongoing School education programs Classroom presentations Ongoing Ongoing In concert with the environment Ongoing Ongoing School water festival (initiated year 2000) Ongoing Ongoing Newspaper articles Provide to newspapers Ongoing Ongoing Landscape seminars Held for customers Planning phase Informational brochures ProduceNdistnbuted numerous Ongoing Ongoing Brochures Landscape/irrigation system 1998 revised landscape code Ongoing Ongoing guidelines To include native vegetation and Low water use vegetation Vehicle billboard program Researched Planning phase Lawn watering calendar Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Distribution of conservation kits Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Rate structure Seasonal water rates Began 1999 Ongoing Ongoing Section 5 - Existing Conservation Program 5.2 City of Kent k®✓ 03 1Mcpd I 11 I I 1 I 11 I June 3, 2003 Table 5-1 (cont) City of Kent's Conservation Program Summary Measures 19932000 2001 2002.2010 Sir residential - indoor Toilet tank displacement device Distributed 1,500 Distribute 1,000 yearly Low- low showerheads Distributed 2,000 Distributed 500 in 2002 Distribute 500 per year High -efficiency toilets 147 rebates 0 $50 46 rebates 0 $50 88 rebates 0 $50 thru March 2003--100 rebates Per year through 2010 Distributed 1,000 in 2002 Low -flow faucet aerators Distributed 2,000 and 500 per year thru 2010 Honzontal-axis clothes washers 116 rebates 0 $50 68 rebates 0 $50 90 rebates 0 $50 in 2002 36 rebates 0 $75 in 2003 100 rebates per year thru 2010 Sf residential - outdoor Irrigation - rain sensors/shut off Distributed 350 Distribute 350 until gone Rain barrels/rain pails Distributed 385 Distributed 400 to 2002 and Distribute 400 per year as grant funding allows Landscape audits 25 per year beginning In 2004 Rainwater harvesting Passage of ordinance by City council & installation Of rainwater harvesting in New construction by 2005 Mf residential - indooNoutdoor Low -flow showerheads Distributed 500 Distribute 500-1000 yearly Low -flow faucet aerators Distributed 500 Distribute 500-1000 yearly High -efficiency toilets 500 per year replacement Offer $100 rebate Non-residential - indoor Kent schools toilet replacement 12 rebates for waterless 100 unnalsRoilets planned Urinals 0$50 each $100 rebate per Rem Section 5 — Existing Conservation Program City of Kent 5-3 WMn03-112Ay mx P June 3, 2003 Table 5-1 (cont) City of Kent's Conservaition Program Summary Measures 1993-2000 2001 2002.2010 Miscellaneous replacements in Utility financed retrofit (up Commercial sector to 50% of cost) to replace low -flow toilets, urinals, faucets, refrigeration, cooling, laundry, ice machines, etc Senor activity center retrofit Completed Included new, water efficient, low -flow fixtures and devices, including infrared devices City of Kent facilities Complete 2002, Included new, water efficient, low -flow fixtures and devices Non-residential - outdoor Irrigation reduction -Kent school Year 2000 cut back on Ongoing Ongoing District Irrigation, and plan to Reduce areas irrigated Irrigation meters - schools Most schools have Ongoing Ongoing Landscape assessments targeting high use customers P Implemented Ongoing Rain sensorstshut-off valve Dismbuted 50 Ongoing Ongoing Cay of Kent irrigated facilities (such as parks) retrofit Complete 2002 Including new, water efficient, low -flow fixtures and devices ' Section 5 - Existing Conservation Program 5.4 City of Kent k.02-03-112/cpO I I 1 I Exhibit 5.1 Consumption per Single Family Account 1999 - 2001 c 2`0 T 200 E e- w v 150 �a 0 y O 100- r 00 - a a 50- E w 0 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Source Untdled table summarmnp residential and commercial a=unts, received from City of Kent, March 2003 Note There is a discrepancy between 1994 and 1995, but these data can not be revwtwed to determine the cause June 3, 2003 ' 5.2 Water System Measures to Improve Efficiency In addition to implementing the City's Conservation Program and assessing conservation ' possibilities at City facilities, Kent's system maintenance has contnbuted to their ability to use water efficiently. In fact, many of these activities are responsible for Kent's low percentage of unaccounted for, non -revenue water production ' Table 5-2 describes the types of activities Kent has implemented which will result in long-term savings due to system maintenance. These savings are difficult to quantify because many of ' these activities could be considered "preventive" in that they are implemented on an ongoing basis to reduce, among other problems, leaks in the water system. Many of these activities are performed before a senous problem occurs I I ' Section 5 - Existing Conservation Program 5.5 City of Kent mwaU3 ttvq&. n I 1 f, F 11 I I I I I I I I June 3, 2003 Water main leak detection . This is an annual program, which began in 1991 • Some significant leaks that have been repaired Kent Springs Transmission Main -1997 - Approx 200 gpm leak repaired Water Infrastructure Replacements/Improvements . Significant replacements and improvements of Kent's mains have been ttyarant use • Use of hydrants is required to be metered Improved tracking of non -revenue water • An on-going program Meter testing - 3 -Inches and larger, Source meters, and • Meters are tested annually Interne meters Preventive maintenance programs . Infrastructure Management System has been implemented to track component inventory • Record maintenance history, preventive maintenance work on Kent's infrastructure have been developed Facility visits for observation of overall condition • Water Sources and Pump Stations - visited daily while in operation • Storage reservoirs - weekly visits • Pressure Reducing Valves - inspected monthly with annual maintenance Section S - Existing Conservation Program 5.6 City of Kent k.Lr2-03 iiv,pd.. F I 11 I C] June 3,2003 This section provides an assessment of the potential for additional water use reductions in Kent between 2003 and 2010. This includes further implementation of conservation programs that are already underway by Kent, as well as potential new program elements that could be developed targeting additional water uses. 6.1 General Residential and Commercial Conservation Measures Table 6-1 presents the results of the Conservation Potential Assessment for 72 different measures For measure descriptions, see Appendix B The table has been divided into indoor and outdoor measure for single family, multi -family, and commercial general classes Measures targeting plumbing fixtures and landscape uses for the industrial customer class are included with the commercial general figures in Table 6-1. Because of the vanability among customers in the industrial sector, measures targeting industrial process water are discussed later in this section and have been assessed separately. Each measure included four types of evaluations: participation of households (for residential measures) or employees (for commercial general measures); estimated water savings available through implementing each measure, cost of implementing each measure, and a combination of water savings and financial costs of each measure Table 6-1 presents an abbreviated version of the parameters calculated for each measure. The parameters shown here were selected because they are of greatest significance to Kent These parameters are presented Parameter Details Affects existing and/or E = Existing future customers F = Future ' Total target households by Consists only of those households or employees to whom the end of planning period measure applies and who have not already implemented the ' (2010) measure. Determined by demographic information (i.e , number of single family households), estimates of those able to participate (i.e. households with dishwashers), adjusted for those already participating in given measure, and accounting for future growth to year 2010. Target as % of total Number of target households or employees divided by total households number of households or employees served by Kent. Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.1 ' City of Kent eve 03-112kp.aa ' Parameter Participation rate (% of target that participates) I 1 n L ; I E Total participating households Savings per participating household or employee in season measure is effective (gpd) Year-round water savings (mgd) Peak Season water savings (mgd) June 3, 2003 Details Estimate of percentage of target households or employees that would be willing to participate if the measure is implemented and suitable incentives are available Achievement of this rate would require appropriate outreach, rebates, and financial incentives related to rates and metering. Resulting estimate of target households or employees which are likely to participate in measure. Water savings were extrapolated from previous regional studies and were adjusted, to the extent possible for application in this study. Estimated daily water savings averaged over entire year. Estimated daily water savings averaged from June 1 to September 31 Average total cost per year Costs were extrapolated from previous regional studies and were adjusted, to the extent possible, for application in this study. Estimated costs include all costs of implementing the measure, without regard to whether cost is paid by the utility or the customer. Cost estimates include hardware, outreach, and program administration Outreach and administrative costs were pro -rated among all measures targeting similar groups, to avoid overlap in costs. Average Cost ($$/1000 gal) for Per-unit cost estimate for year-round water savings. year-round savings Average Cost ($$/1000 gal) for peak Per-unit cost estimate summer season savings (water saved season savings from June I to September 31). All costs and water savings were derived from the 2001 Central Puget Sound Regional Water Supply Outlook conservation evaluation. This assessment of conservation options covered Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties. Many of the costs and water savings estimates contained in the Outlook assessment originated from Seattle Public Utilities' 1998 Conservation Potential Assessment and City of Everett's 2000 Water System Plan. Some adjustments were made from the data used in the Outlook: ■ Costs and water saved were adjusted for a 7 -year planning period. ■ Water savings realized by implementing measures affecting irrigation were reduced by 20% to reflect Kent's land use, which is denser and generally has less landscaping than the three - county region as a whole. The reduced savings are consistent with the Seattle Public Utilities estimates for its own Conservation Potential Assessment. Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6-2 City of Kent ke 03 112kp .d I 1 I Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.3 City of Kent k.O 01112 p.d 8- � j i!! d{z i@ A 3 • E -1 - 011M 3 8 � •� i 5 _ p 1 Q 3sg €S Aw3MO 3 W 1 301M A1NVA 130NI3 tlODOUIO lY0N3N ANWI 310NIS Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.3 City of Kent k.O 01112 p.d [l 1 C] [I 1 ' Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.4 City of Kent ken V2 03 I ILcpcdoc flit, a a S Sa W a"� ^ a a 6 a _ R g a 5$ a a A a a a R tl a» a a a a s a 4 fillf IS F as a aaRaaAR •, R R� B a a aAR F A m -& a cl s„� A F I s i � as a� m a } x x x x a a x R x R x R x R x R x R x a x R a x g x A x a a x � x a A x x A Rx C AWS d E 3 pp a R» a R1 9 R 191 a 811 q1 7 V1 41 n Y: Y NeEWq tlW0e ltlllN]OIWtl A1WYtl1AlM1 tlOOptllO lYLLH3e93tl AlIYIYlillllW ' Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.4 City of Kent ken V2 03 I ILcpcdoc I 1 I 1 11 1 1 I I 1 Section 6 -Conservation PoteMlal within City of Kent Service Area 6-5 City of Kent � 0 1 iu<c Aq A R _ S#$ S 8 F g A A # 8- # F21T # =A w 3 w E I A 8^ R# A A g^ S R S g R R R a g$ R 8 3 S R 8 R� 8 - -- - - ii 3 ga�j sT aP` m y M 0 x sax Fj B ` gg$g R R R R S R R $ S g 8a S a 1 `9 9 A 9 9 A a A 9 s 9 8 s 9*S 9 A g s h €o 3 Y4$ 8 g <$ ssee � � B s 8 t pp 3 l S O tl0001U-INOtl>'I 11000Lq' lMUMWOO Section 6 -Conservation PoteMlal within City of Kent Service Area 6-5 City of Kent � 0 1 iu<c 1 June 3, 2003 ■ Costs of measure implementation were increased from the Outlook values, to reflect reduced ' economies of scale that Kent may experience compared with the region as a whole. The increased cost is consistent with the Seattle Public Utilities estimates for its own Conservation Potential Assessment. ' ■ Costs were adjusted to reflect inflation between 1998 and 2003 An additional concept represented in the analysis made in Table 6-1 is that of the "free rider" ' For each measure, an estimate has been made of the accounts that would implement a given measure during the planning period whether or not Kent provides any incentives or outreach for this measure in their conservation program. These accounts will likely take advantage of any ' financial incentives or hardware provided by Kent's conservation program. However, they do not add to overall water savings realized through Kent's conservation efforts because these customers would implement that measure even if Kent had not provided the incentive. This has been reflected in the costs and water savings presented in Table 6-1. All estimates of costs include free riders, but estimates of water savings do not include free nders Table 6-1 represents a combination of information from Kent personnel as well as assumptions made in other regional efforts to evaluate conservation options and information derived from ' other conservation sources. As such, this analysis provides a comprehensive comparison of conservation measures that would be applicable in Kent's service area. However, the extrapolated values, especially for costs, may vary somewhat from values that would occur in the t Kent area for each individual measure Prior to implementing selected options, further refinement of financial costs and estimated savings should be performed for budgeting and other purposes. ' Table 6-1 represents an evaluation based upon extrapolation from the other sources documented However, the following items note where savings or costs results may be less reliable than ' others: ■ Measure 57, Improved Cooling Systems, is applied in a manner that indicates that year-round ' water savings are equal to those realized during the summer season. This is because the original source material' included not only air conditioning systems used in the summer, but refrigeration and ice units, which are used year-round. ' ■ Single Family and Multi -Family outdoor measures have the same estimates of water savings per participating unit even though yard areas per participating unit is likely to be significantly higher for single family households than multi -family households This is because the ' original source material' provided a composite of savings for both types of residential households. 1 1 1 1 6.2 Conservation Measures Associated with Industrial Processes For purposes of this Conservation Potential Assessment, water savings associated with industrial processes are estimated separately from the conservation measures listed in Table 6-1. This is i Conservation Potential Assessment, Seattle Public Utilities, 1998 Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.6 City of Kent krnVb03 uv�� June 3, 2003 because water uses, conservation potential, and cost/benefit ratios are highly specific to each industry and facility, depending on the nature of the process, type of equipment, depreciation on physical plant and other factors. It should be noted that domestic and landscape opportunities for industrial customers are included in the estimates shown in Table 6-1. However, industrial ' process water is addressed separately in this section. The City of Kent has substantial industrial activity, making this an important component of overall conservation potential. Approximately 9% of the City's water sales are to customers classified as industrial. This amounts to approximately 725,000 gpd on an average year round basis, and 900,000 gpd during the summer months. Industrial activities are highly diverse, including aerospace (The Boeing Company), bottling, food processing, building products, manufacture of specialized equipment, finishing, industrial gases, sand and gravel. It is estimated that approximately 18,000 employees worked in the manufacturing sector within the City of Kent in year 20002. The City also has a large component of warehousing and distribution services. 1 6.2.1 Estimated Water Savings for Industrial Process Water Based on experiences in other cities throughout the United States, industrial facilities can offer significant potential for water conservation. Industrial activities are one component of what is known as the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) sector. Based on review of case studies and audit reports, Vickers reports typical savings potential of 15 to ' 35% at ICI facilities in general3, with payback periods ranging from a few months to a few years A report from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer offers similar findings, with water savings at some facilities exceeding 50%°. It should be noted that ' these estimates include commercial facilities and institutional facilities, in addition to industrial facilities. Moreover, these estimates include water saved from retrofit or replacement of domestic plumbing fixtures such as toilets, as well as water savings from ' landscaping and turf management. Even so, there are many examples of dramatic water savings involving process water use efficiency Tacoma Water, Seattle Public Utilities and the Portland Water Bureau have all found substantial benefits in addressing water use ' efficiency with their industrial customers. The City of Kent has performed water conservation audits on a number of industrial customers, as part of a program offering audits to the City's 20 largest water users. Industrial facilities that had water conservation audits performed included: ■ Boeing ■ Air Liquide ■ Oberto Sausage Co. ■ Pure Water Corp. ■ Bakery Chef, Inc. ■ Northstar Beverage Z 2002 King County Annual Growth Report 3 Vickers, Amy, Water Use and Conservation, Wateiplow Press, 2001 New Mexico Office of State Engineer, A Water Conservation Guile for Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Users, 1999 ' Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.7 City of Kent ke.0-03 iizi�aa I June 3, 2003 ■ Flow International ■ Mikron Industries ■ Western Insulfoam Results of the audits indicated water savings potential in many industrial processes such as cooling of equipment used in manufacturing processes, water filter backflushing, reverse osmosis purification, vehicle washing, production washdown and rinsing, defrosting of frozen foods, and clothes washing. It is likely that audits of additional facilities would identify further opportunities in these areas, as well as other types of water -using processes The water audits of industrial facilities were preliminary scoping audits, and did not estimate specific volumes of water savings, nor did they provide information on costs. ' In the absence of specific data on savings and costs, a more general estimation procedure will be used for this Conservation Potential Assessment. Based on the information reported above, it is assumed that water savings potential in the industrial sector is on the order of 25% (midpoint of 15 to 35% estimate reported above) However, a significant component of these savings is associated with domestic plumbing fixtures and landscape irrigation, which were already estimated in Table 6-1 of this report Therefore it is assumed that the quantity of water savings that could be achieved solely through improvements in industrial processes is reduced to approximately 10 to 15%. If the more conservative value of 10% is used, this amounts to the following amount of water ' savings: ■ Year round savings. 10% x 725,000 gpd = 72,500 gpd ' ■ Summer season savings: 10% x 900,000 gpd = 90,000 gpd Based on the summer season average daily demand of 14.48 mgd projected for year 2010 (see Table 4-1), this amounts to 0.6% of total summer season production in year 2010 6.2.2 Estimated Costs for Conservation Involving Industrial Process Water The costs of achieving water savings from industrial processes can vary widely. Data on costs was not provided by the audits described above Therefore, an alternative estimation procedure was used based on data from two metropolitan areas in the Pacific Northwest ' SPU reported expenditures of $567,000 on "commercial process" conservation measures in year 2002. Estimated long-term savings from this program were 246,000 gpd. This equates to approximately $2.30 for every gpd of water savings. SPU reported comparable values for year 2001. In that year, expenditures were $710,000 and estimated water saved was 550,000 gpd. This equates to $129 per gpd of water savings 5. ' s Seattle Public Utilities, Regional 1% Water Conservation Program, Annual Reports for years 2001 (issued May 2002) and 2002 (issued March 2003). Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area li•8 City of Kent UMC -M I[V� x ILEI June 3, 2003 The Regional Water Providers Consortium recently evaluated a range of water ' conservation programs for water service areas in the Portland, Oregon area. Two of the 19 programs evaluated are relevant to this discussion of water conservation in the industrial sector: ' ■ Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Audits, which targets CII accounts in the top 15% of annual use, as well as accounts experiencing a sharp increase in water use. These audits include industrial processes, but also other conservation measures such as domestic plumbing fixtures and landscape irrigation ■ Eliminate Single -Pass Cooling, targeting equipment such as refrigeration, air conditioning and ice machines Using the results presented in the Consortium report, an estimate was derived for the costs per gpd of water savings The costs for these two programs are shown on Table 6-2. Table 6-2 Unit Costs Derived from Consortium Report Unit Cost Unit Cost Measure ($$/gpd) ($$/Iwo gal) CII Audits $3 Wgpd 036 Eliminate Single Pass Cooling $0 21/gpd 002 While these costs are not wholly industrial process costs, they are informative in assessing potential costs for the industrial sector. In summary, significant water savings can potentially be achieved by addressing industrial processes in the Kent service area For comparison with the values for other types of measures presented in Table 6-1, potential water savings are on the order of 72,500 gpd year round and 90,000 gpd in the summer season. Costs estimated in other studies for the Seattle and Portland regions vary widely, but appear to be on the order of $0 02 per gpd to $0.36 per 1,000 gallons Achieving these savings would likely require a considerable effort in terms of site-specific analysis, or incentives to industrial customers. 6.3 Avoided Cost Comparison I Some basis is needed for determining which water conservation measures are cost effective. For purposes of this Conservation Potential Assessment the "avoided cost' associated with conserving water was calculated. Avoided cost means the financial savings to the City when customers use less water. For this study, the avoided cost was defined as the variable cost associated with producing an additional 1,000 gallons of water during the summer season, plus the variable cost associated with sewer flows Since the cost of sewerage disposal is considerably higher than the cost of providing drinking water, the sewerage component has a large impact on the results. ' ' Davis, William and William Christensen, Update of the Regional Water Supply Plan Conservation Element, 2003 'Note The Consortium uses "CIY' instead of "ICI " Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6-8 City of Kent kentn-03-IlvcMa I I I I I F I I I 11 I I I I I I I I June 3, 2003 For the water production component of avoided cost, City of Kent staff provided data on costs of pumping and treatment for the City's various sources of supply. The sources used to meet additional needs in the summer are generally more costly than the sources that provide base flows year round These more expensive sources include Armstrong S9rings ($0.09 per 1,000 gallons); the Soos Creek Well ($0.29 per 1,000 gallons) and the 212 site ($0.22 per 1,000 gallons). The average cost of these three sources is $0 20 per 1,000 gallons of water produced This is the variable cost of pumping (energy) and treatment (chemicals) only, and does not include capital costs associated with these facilities. Variable labor costs were not estimated for this purpose but are likely relatively small since staff costs do not vary substantially when less water is produced. Water to be delivered through the Second Supply Project will be considerably less costly than these three sources. City staff indicated a cost of $0.02 per 1,000 gallons from this source. Assuming this source is on line in 2010, the cost of water from the SSP would be the appropriate comparison. However, in this CPA the more conservative avoided cost of $0.20 per 1,000 gallons will be used to establish cost effectiveness of conservation actions. Since the City also pays for sewer flows to King County Metro, this represents an additional component of avoided cost that should be considered. This component is considerably larger than the water production component. For sewer service, the City collects a variable charge of $4.17 per hundred cubic feet from utility customers. This is measured based on the water meter for each customer, using a 1 1 ratio of water use and sewer flow Converting this value yields a result of $5.57 per 1,000 gallons 8. Based on this information, the total avoided cost of conserved water used for comparison purposes is $5.57 + $0.20 = $5.77 per 1,000 gallons. The sewer component is 97% of this total The total avoided cost has been rounded to yield $6 00 per 1,000 gallons. 6.4 Screening by Cost-effectiveness and Water Savings It should be noted that some of the measures that pass the cost-effectiveness test above yield little water savings, while other measures offer substantially higher savings. It is suggested that, for screening purposes, measures that are cost effective and produce savings of more than 5,000 gpd on a summer season basis be the primary focus for purposes of achieving the savings targets in the MOA. Combining the cost effectiveness threshold of $6.00 per 1,000 gallons in the peak season, and the savings threshold of 5,000 gpd in the peak season, there are 28 of the 72 measures that are cost effective and appear to offer the best opportunities for water conservation. These measures, and their water savings and annual costs are listed in Table 6-3. B One ccf = 748 gallons 1,000 gallons is 33.7% higher than 748 gallons Therefore, the unit cost in $$ per ccf was raised by this amount to yield $$ per thousand gallons Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kant Service Area 6.10 City of Kent kenV2-03-1 ivky..o I June 3, 2003 ITotal potential savings for this suite of conservation measures are 614,000 gpd year round and 834,000 gpd during the summer season. Since summer season production is projected to be 14.48 mgd in year 2010 (see Table 3-1), this represents water savings of approximately 5.8% by year 2010. I I I Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent 8erviee Area 6-11 City of Kent k..2 03.1]Vq.d Year Round Peak Season Peak Season Savings Savings Unit Cost # Measure (1,OOOs gpd) (1,OOOs gpd) ($/1,000 gal.) Single Family Residential Indoor 5 Efficient Clothes washers 66 66 $564 6 Decreased faucet use 10 10 $062 7 Decreased shower use 14 14 $045 8 Eliminate partial clothes washer loads 9 9 $088 10 Decrease toilet flushes 11 11 $077 Single Family Residential Outdoor 11 Irrigation system improvements 12 Improved irrigation scheduling 5 2 14 7 $3 18 $087 15 Automatic rain shutoff devices 2 5 $327 25 Allow lawn to go dormant 8 25 $021 Multi family Residential Indoor 30 Efficient clothes washers 66 66 $564 31 Decreased faucet use 16 16 $062 32 Decreased shower use 33 Eliminate partial clothes washer loads 23 6 23 6 $045 $088 35 Decrease toilet flushes 13 13 $077 Multi -family Residential Outdoor 36 Irrigation system improvements 30 91 $3 18 37 Improved irrigation scheduling 16 48 $087 38 Efficient landscape design 2 5 $199 40 Automatic rain shutoff devices 42 Improved swimming pool use 13 4 40 11 $327 $019 48 Allow lawn to go dormant 16 47 $021 Commercial Indoor 52 Low volume toilets and urinals 88 88 $166 53 Efficient clothes washing 50 50 $282 55 Leak detection and repair 13 13 $345 57 Improved cooling systems 58 Install waterless urinals 94 24 94 24 $202 250 Commercial Outdoor 61 Irrigation system improvements 2 5 $307 64 Weather based irrigation controls 9 27 $207 71 Single -pass decorative water features 2 6 $009 Total Potential Water Savines 614 834 N/A I I Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent 8erviee Area 6-11 City of Kent k..2 03.1]Vq.d 11 1 P June 3, 2003 6.5 Conservation Savings Realized Through Water Efficient Plumbing Code 6.5.1 Residential Code Savings An additional source of water savings are cumulative savings that will accrue as new construction and remodeling activity occur within Kent's service area. Due to the 1993 Plumbing Code, which took effect in 1994, all new toilets, showerheads, and faucets installed throughout Washington must meet water -use efficiency standards. This has the gradual effect of reducing the level of demand per household. Based on the proportion of housing built before 1994 and after 1994 in the Kent service area, an estimate was developed of the incremental effect of these "code savings" between years 2000 and 2010. In Table 6-4, the amount of water used for flushing toilets in the residential sector was estimated for 1994, 2000, and 2010. The water savings due to the plumbing code change was assessed as well. For purposes of this estimate, it was assumed that in 1994 all toilets used about 3 5 gallons per flush (gpf), on average, and for every year after, approximately 5% of those toilets were replaced with low -flow toilets using 1.6 gpf. An average of five flushes per day per person was used. In addition, it was assumed that all new toilets installed in new residences used 1.6 gpf. Therefore, by year 2000, 30% of pre -1994 toilets would be upgraded with low -flow toilets. By year 2010, 80% of the pre - 1994 toilets would have been replaced with low -flow toilets Based on these calculations, it is estimated that water consumption per capita used for flushing toilets will be reduced from 12 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in year 2003 to 9 gpcd in year 2010. This is a reduction of 3 gpcd per day Given the projected water service area population at year 2010 of 64,135, this is equivalent to approximately 192,405 gpd in water savings in the residential sector. The 1993 Plumbing Code also required more efficient showerheads and faucets Since the lifetime of these fixtures is on the order of 10 years, the Study Team assumes, that households existing before 1994 would replace these fixtures at a rate of 10% per year. Therefore, by 2003, 90% of all old fixtures have been replaced Between 2003 and 2010, very little new savings will be realized through the codes affecting showerheads and faucets9. 9 However, without this code in place, the savings realized through 1993 change in code could be lost Therefore, maintaining this code is a significant conservation measure Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.12 City of Kent k=2 03 iivro.m J LJ 1 J ■ All new and upgraded toilets use 16 gpf ■ All existing toilets that have not been upgraded use 3 5 gpf ■ 5 flushes per day per person is esumated Notes GPCD = gallons per capita per day '45% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) 280% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) 6.5.2 Non-residential Code Savings In Table 6-5, the amount of water used for flushing toilets in the commercial sector was estimated for 1994, 2000, and 2010. Since flushometer-type toilets are much more common than tank -type toilets in the commercial sector, it was assumed that only 10% of ' all employees use tank -type toilets. The same assumptions were made regarding number of gallons per flush and rate of replacement of old toilets as in residential calculations. An average of two flushes per day per employee was used in the calculation10 I I 11 I Based on these calculations, it is estimatedthat water consumption per employee used for flushing toilets will be reduced from 5.2 gpcd in year 2003 to 3.9 gpcd in year 2010 Given the number of employees projected at year 2010, this is a water savings of approximately 7,633 gallons per day 6.5.3 Total Code Savings The total savings from the plumbing code estimated above amount to approximately 200,000 gpd This amount would be the same on a year round basis as during the summer season. Compared with the projected summer season production of 14.48 mgd (see Table 4-1), this is equivalent to approximately 1.4% water savings in year 2010. 10 Vickers, A, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, 2001 This value takes into account the fact that male employees use urinals more often than toilets, and urinals are not affected by the code savings Section S -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 613 City of Kent k.V2-03-112kp.a June 3, 2003 Estimate of Table 6-4 Plumbing Code Savings from Residential Number (30) of People usin : Toilets Total Gallons Total Old New or Flushed per Toilet Use Year Population Toilets Upgraded Toilets Da (GCPD) 1994 44,875 44,875 0 785,308 18 (100%) (0%) 2003 60,886 24,681 36,205 721,559 12 (41%) (59%) 2010 2 1 64,135 1 8,975 1 55,160 598,342 9 ■ All new and upgraded toilets use 16 gpf ■ All existing toilets that have not been upgraded use 3 5 gpf ■ 5 flushes per day per person is esumated Notes GPCD = gallons per capita per day '45% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) 280% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) 6.5.2 Non-residential Code Savings In Table 6-5, the amount of water used for flushing toilets in the commercial sector was estimated for 1994, 2000, and 2010. Since flushometer-type toilets are much more common than tank -type toilets in the commercial sector, it was assumed that only 10% of ' all employees use tank -type toilets. The same assumptions were made regarding number of gallons per flush and rate of replacement of old toilets as in residential calculations. An average of two flushes per day per employee was used in the calculation10 I I 11 I Based on these calculations, it is estimatedthat water consumption per employee used for flushing toilets will be reduced from 5.2 gpcd in year 2003 to 3.9 gpcd in year 2010 Given the number of employees projected at year 2010, this is a water savings of approximately 7,633 gallons per day 6.5.3 Total Code Savings The total savings from the plumbing code estimated above amount to approximately 200,000 gpd This amount would be the same on a year round basis as during the summer season. Compared with the projected summer season production of 14.48 mgd (see Table 4-1), this is equivalent to approximately 1.4% water savings in year 2010. 10 Vickers, A, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, 2001 This value takes into account the fact that male employees use urinals more often than toilets, and urinals are not affected by the code savings Section S -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 613 City of Kent k.V2-03-112kp.a I I u I I u I I L I I I I I I I I June 3, 2003 Assumptions All new and upgraded toilets use 16 gpf All existing toilets that have not been upgraded use 3 5 gpf 2 [lushes per day per person is estimated 10% of employees use Tank toilets, which this conservation treasure can be applied to GPCD = gallons per capita per day i45% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) '80% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.14 City of Kent lwr m tivyAmc Toilets Estimate Plumbing Table 6-5 Code Savings from Commercial of Employees Number (%) of Employees using: Total Tank Tank Old Tank New or Upgraded Total Using Tank Gallons Flusbed Toilet Use Year Employment Toilets Toilets Tank Toilets per Da (GCPD 1994 53,787 5,379 5,379 0 37,651 70 10% 0% 2003 56,520 5,652 2,958.3 2,69372 29,328 52 5% 5% 20104 58,934 5,893 1,0757 4,818 22,947 3 9 183% 8 17% Assumptions All new and upgraded toilets use 16 gpf All existing toilets that have not been upgraded use 3 5 gpf 2 [lushes per day per person is estimated 10% of employees use Tank toilets, which this conservation treasure can be applied to GPCD = gallons per capita per day i45% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) '80% existing toilets upgraded (5% per year since 1994) Section 6 -Conservation Potential within City of Kent Service Area 6.14 City of Kent lwr m tivyAmc I I I I I I I I u I [J I I I June 3, 2003 In June of 2001, Kent, Its partners in the Second Supply Project, and the State Departments of Ecology and Health developed a methodology for evaluating conservation savings, pursuant to the MOA discussed in the Introduction to this technical memorandum. The methodology Identifies specific data that each of the five utility partners will need to collect, in order to demonstrate achievement of the MOA goals. The data requirements are listed below. It is recommended that Kent staff review current data collection and analysis procedures, and adapt them as needed to ensure appropriate data is collected annually and stored for use in the conservation evaluation scheduled to take place in year 2011 (retrospective to year 2010) In addition, the required data needs to be assembled for year 2000, to provide a baseline for comparison with year 2010. The data requirements are summarized in Table 7-1. Some categories of data (e.g population) may not be needed for every year, but should be collected, at a minimum, for year 2000 and year 2010 Although not specifically listed in the required statistics, four additional Items that may require data collection are identified in the conservation evaluation methodology ■ First, rates are identified as a factor In order to ensure data is available to support the evaluation, it is recommended that a rate schedule from each year (2000 — 2010) be retained in the same file as the above data. ■ Second, system practices are identified as a factor. It is recommended that an annual summary of system practices that relate to non -revenue water be produced and retained for this purpose (e g., main flushing, reservoir management, significant repairs and replacement of mains or transmission lines, other infrastructure impacts, major fire -fighting events, etc.). ■ Third, weather conditions are identified as a factor Since the conservation analysis will be compiled as a single report for all five utility partners, it would be best to work with the remaining partners to agree on a common weather station and set of statistics to be obtained periodically from the National Weather Service This data can then be stored by all five partners, or by one of the partners assigned this responsibility ■ Fourth, one of the methods identified for evaluating the conservation savings involves developing an estimate of water saved through conservation measures. Therefore it is recommended that Kent periodically develop a quantitative estimate of cumulative water savings achieved beginning January 1, 2000. This estimate could be developed as part of a Water System Plan Update or similar effort, if appropriate. Collection of the data listed on a regular, sustained basis will facilitate eventual evaluation of conservation savings in the context of the MOA conservation evaluation methodology Section 7 -Data Required for Conservation Evacuation of Second Supply Project 7-1 Agreement Implementation - City of Kent �W2-0; 112kp .a I I 1 1 I LJ I I I L I I I I I June 3, 2003 Total water use (1 a produchoo) Total summer season water use (e g production from May I to September 30, _ or other pend de6nedZomtly by SStpartn�rs)____ Totalpopulatton --- --- _ — ----- -- Per-capita water use (total use divided by population) Per -ca its summer season water use _ _ Total Residential water use (annual and summer season) S11 le-fanuly residential water use (annual_ and summer season) _ _Multi -family residential water use (annual and summer season) Total non-residential water use (annual and summer season_) Total Commercial water use (annual and summer season) Total Industrial water use (annual and summer season)__ - Total Government water use (annual and summer season) Water use by individual large customers (customers using at least 100,000 gallons per day at a single facility, on an average annual basis) (annual and summer season) _ Total non -revenue water (water that is produced but not included in metered sales) (annual and summer season) A breakdown of non -revenue water in_to "accounted -for' and "unaccounted- for" categories (it is recognized that these categories will require estimation, since the are_generallynot directly measurable) (annual and summer season) IL Data Required= Only If Used to the Final Evaluation (should be wllectei Total number of households served Number of single-family and multi-faimly households served -'-- - - ---- - - - - - -- - - - ---- - Avemge residential water use Per-household- Average erhousehold_Average water lseper smgle-family household Average water use per multi -family household _ Total number of non-residential accounts In the non-residential category, average water use per employee or per capita (if per capita, the non-residential water use will be divided by the residential population)--___ ---- Changes in the nature of non-residential accounts that have significant effects -on non-residential water use %a no n-revenue water, expressed as a % of total system water use Kent records of producuon and wholesale purchase Kent records of production and wholesalepurchase Census or PSRC Calculated from above data Kent billing system__ Kent bdhng system __ Kent _Nem bilhrig; system Kent billmg_system Kent billing system Calculated from production and billing records Kent estimates is contingency)__ '----'-----__ Combination of census/PSRC and Kent billing system (residential accounts) Combination of census/PSRC and Kent billing system (residential accounts) _ Calculated from_above data Calculated from above data _ __ — Calculated _from -above -data _ Kent billing system____ __ _ Calculated from above data (employment from Census and/or PSRC) _ Kent staff knowledge ' Section 7 -Data Required for Conservation Evaluation of Second Supply Project 7-2 Agreement Implementation - City of Kent t.ve oiiivkp". I I P I I 1 June 3, 20.03 The following steps were used to develop information presented in Exhibits 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7 and 5-1 of this report and in the section entitled "Water Use by Customer Class." Raw Data City of Kent provided the Study Team, in March 2003, with a spreadsheet entitled "2000 — 2001 monthly water stats." This spreadsheet contains, on a monthly basis, the volume of water each customer class was billed for during the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. 1 Data for 2000, which are shown in Table A-1, were used in the report because 2000 is most representative of a typical year. A drought occurred in 2001, and in 2002 the region was experiencing a recession. ' The data present the volume of water billed to each customer class. The volumes are presented in ccf, or hundreds of cubic feet. In addition to separating out the information by customer class, ' the information has been separated according to "inside" or "outside" of Kent's city limits. In some cases, the customer class name is followed by "sprinkler " Data are presented for customer classes which are metered separately for domestic and outdoor (lawn irrigation, primarily) water use The second column presents "B," "M," or an empty space in the second column to indicate what type of accounts were billed for the indicated volume. Accounts which receive bills once every two months are denoted with a "B;" those which receive a monthly bill are included in the rows denoted with an "M," and those classes without either letter were assumed to be bimonthly Data Manipulation For the purposes of this study, some manipulation of the data was necessary. This was necessary for three reasons 1. The data included in Table A-1 indicate the volume of water customers were billed for in each month. However, this study is focused on the amount of water customers use in a given month. 2. The Study Team was interested in how much water is used on a monthly basis, which is provided directly only for the monthly accounts. r3. The data are in ccf and need to be converted to millions of gallons (MG) to agree with units used in remainder of report Appendix A - Data and Methodology for Calculating Usage by Customer Class M1 City of Kent K IM3 112�,.m, I June 3, 2003 The following assumptions were made: ■ Monthly billed volumes represent the amount of water used during 1/2 of the previous month and V2 half of the current month, as shown in Exhibit A-1. Essentially, it is assumed that meters are read on the 15th of each month. To derive the amount of water used in August, 1h of the August billed volume is added to 1/2 of the volume billed in September Meters are read, in general, on routes during the first three weeks of each month. In general, each meter is read on the same day of each month. Exhibit A-1 Representation of Billing vs. Actual Water Use - Monthly Accounts AUGUST SEPTEMBER BILL i WATER USE fJ F I F I I I I F 1 1 ■ Bimonthly billed volumes represent the amount of water used during the final half of the month two months previous to the current month, the entire previous month, and first half of the current month, as shown in Exhibit A-2. This assumes that each bimonthly account has a meter reading on the 15th of every other month. To derive the amount of water used in July, 1/s of the amount of volume shown for July is added to 1/2 of the volume billed for August and 1/a of the volume billed for in September. Exhibit A-2 Representation of Billing vs. Actual Water Use - Bimonthly Accounts JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER BILL WATER USE The following equations can be used: Monthly Data 0.5(vn) + 0 5(vn+l) Where: v„ = volume of water billed for in month n n = given month Bi -monthly Data 0.25(vn) + 0.5(vn+i) + 0.25(vn+2) Where. vn = volume of water billed for in month n n = given month Appendix A - Data and Methodology for Calculating Usage by Customer Class A-2 City of Kent �,UA3 112� I I 1 June 3, 2003 Sample Calculation Calculate the amount of water used by Industrial Class during August 2000 using assumptions discussed above. Data included in Table A-1. August September October Industrial (inside city limits) B 0 7641 0 M 33253 34215 31914 Industrial (outside city limits) 0 0 0 Monthly Calculation: Inside City Limits 05(33253)+05(34215)=33,734 Bi -monthly Calculation: Inside City Limits: 0.25(0) + 0.5(7641) + 0.25(0) = 3,820.5 Outside City Limits. 0 Total Industrial Class Volume for August 2000: 33734 + 3820.5 + 0 = 37554.5 ccf Conversion The volumes were then converted from ccf to MG using the following conversion: 1 cubic foot = 7 4805 gallons Conversion calculation for August: 0.000001gallons/million gallons 37554.5 ccf x 100 cf/ccf x 7.4805 gallons/cf x Total Industrial Class Volume for August 2000: 28.093 million gallons This is the same as the value presented in Table A-2 for the "Industrial Class" in August. Data Used The data presented in Table A-2 have been derived as described above and were used to develop ' the graphs and discussion in the report. I I Appendix A - Data and Methodology for Calculating Usage by Customer Class A3 City of Kent Km\2-03-112 .pa. p I 1 m V V m�� O I yMi-Firs tti N •- •- � ^' F a�II � N m pp N cp ��pp fO ttpp p �rpri �(yn .- v Nye pa ppb pp (p e� p ccOOm [x m� O� N O W O fD tpOmp n N � � N W N m� W N N N W m N O yy mm m V CI Imn. e0 r W W O')ymy O �W r Mr N ^ N W N m m fn toO m e j �nW Z&N cn nr �n nW R R� m Tr � m � mr 'm I$ W .nm din mm 8 N N 1� � V OOOrlll n O� N �J IO. O til Oi W O n n N t0 O til r p Nm Oi n O m 2 m-2 m 2 m m 2 m m 2 m s m m m m C a[ 0 (D m m x � m x x E m E E m g M E �' > > m m U 0 U S �' — 2 2 O m V I 1 n § � \ @ I @ [] $ @ I I I II \ I / I $ / ;\ 0 0 ,;° Bk B& !,_o;,; e2° a§ 9 % Nk��k�§ ,\ -, § E ° m;®°§°2 ) ° 0 `2 § !�@°!°7 © §l00f0 0 v§ \ |■!0 M0 2 ` `-a ■ %@,°3°` � s| 2 - ; „;a) e meg;§ ,, | 0,§0� "$ § ®!° @°2 °m°n§ ~ m � cot § ! _ ! ! ! \ |!8 ))}SCC $j2 a3 a ! ! a ;\ I I F F I r-] I a� 9 Q Y tet: V0 �` pQ� `o V O K �q cN! w� yt� �. " 4 N N V trNy N ow NMWMO of O m m o o e o m On � chi lti O m N m <O O N O Oi N 4i d N i n N O r m N N aD O ONi O mr N O O O^ m O am O W m O m yY m 0 m y c N y c c c a W m E E Y Y E N cc 0 c7 w m LL LL m y o m gy 0 j m L a� 9 Q Y F I I 1 I June 3, 2003 Residential Indoor Low -Flow Showerheads Description- Distribute low -flow showerheads to reduce shower consumption Accelerates savings that would occur from plumbing code Targeted Group. Residential accounts with older (pre -1993) showerheads Faucet Aerators Description Distribute faucet aerators to reduce flows from faucets in kitchen and bathroom sinks Targeted Group Residential accounts with older (pre -1993) faucets Decrease "Run Until Hot' Use Description Install plumbing system with re -circulating pump or on -demand close proximity water heater system to provide "instant hot" water to tap in new construction and plumbing remodel accounts. Targeted Group New construction and plumbing remodel accounts, Leak Detection and Toilet Flapper Repair Description Install redesigned, longer life toilet flappers in leaking toilets. Targeted Group Residential accounts with toilet flapper leaks Low -Volume Toilets Description, Install 1.6 gallon per flush toilets to replace high flush toilets Targeted Group. Residential accounts with 3 5 gallon per flush toilets or higher. Efficient Clothes Washers Description Install new water efficient clothes washers in households with conventional washers Targeted Group Households with clothes waters Efficient Dish Washers Description Install new water efficient dishwashers in households with conventional washers Target Group. Households with clothes washers. Decreased Faucet Use Description Reduce minutes of faucet run time Targeted Group Households Decreased Shower Use Description Reduce showering minutes per person Target Group Households Eliminate Partial Clothes Washer Loads Description Reduce the number of clothes washer loads by eliminating partial loads Target Group. Households with clothes washers. Eliminate Partial Dish Loads Description- Reduce the number of dishwasher loads by eliminating partial loads Target Group- Households with dishwashers Decrease Toilet Flushes Description Reduce the number of toilet flushes per person Targeted Group- Households Appendix B - Measure Descriptions B-1 City of Kent Km. 2 03 L 12�p..m June 3, 2003 ' Residential Outdoor ' Irrigation System Improvements Description- Improve the efficiency of existing irrigation systems through repair, removal, replacement, or adjustment of in -ground sprinkler system components ' Targeted Group. Residential accounts with manual and automatic irrigation systems Improved Irrigation Scheduling Description. Improve the efficiency of existing irrigation systems through better irrigation ' scheduling. Targeted Group. Residential accounts with manual and automatic irrigation systems Soil Moisture Sensors ' Description: Install soil moisture sensors for automatic irrigation systems. Targeted Group. Residential accounts with automatic in -ground irrigation systems Efficient Landscaping Practices ' Description Replace 300 sq ft of lawn with plants having low water use requirements in new construction and remodeled landscapes Targeted Group New construction and remodeled landscapes. ' Improved Soil Amendments Description- Improve soil amendments, adding material such as compost, to new construction and remodeled landscapes. ' Targeted Group New construction and remodeled landscapes Automatic Rain Shut Off Devices Description. Install automatic ram shut-off devices for automatic irrigation systems. ' Targeted Group: Residential accounts with automatic in -ground irrigation systems. Low -Volume Irrigation Systems Description- Install dripfbubbler irrigation systems for new construction and remodeled landscapes that would have relied on in -ground sprinkler systems Targeted Group- New construction and remodeled landscapes ' Improved Swimming Pool Use Description- Reduce the number of drains and fills of pools by better water quality control. Target Group Residential accounts with swimming pools ' Improved Hot Tub Use Description Reduce the number of drains and fills of hot tubs through better water quality control. Target Group. Residential accounts with hot tubs. ' Switch to Recirculating Car Wash Description- Reduce the water used for car washing by switching from home to recirculating commercial washes. ' Targeted Group. Households washing cars at home. Dry Sidewalk Cleaning Description. Reduce sidewalk and drive cleaning with water by switching to sweeping. Target Group. Residential accounts using water to clean sidewalks. 50 -Gallon Rain Barrel Catchment Description. Install 50 -gallon irrigation barrels and systems to gutter downspouts to collect ' rainwater for irrigation systems. Targeted Group Single-family accounts with irrigated landscaping 1,000 Gallon Cistern Catchment ' Description- Install 1,000 gallon cisterns to harvest rainwater from single-family home rooftops Targeted Group New single-family houses, with irrigated ornamental landscaping and or gardens. ' Appendix B - Measure Descriptions B-2 CRy of Kent Kem\2.nl]Z .pe ' June 3, 2003 ' Improve Maintenance of Turf Description. Improve turf maintenance through actions such as: thatching, aerating, over -seeding, ' and top -dressing. Targeted Group Residential accounts with imgated lawn. ' Improve Mulching Description Install mulch materials in ornamental gardens Targeted Group. Residential accounts with ornamental gardens ' Allow Lawn to go Dormant Description. Reducing irrigation to minimal requirements allowing lawns to go naturally dormant Targeted Group. Residential accounts with irrigated lawns 'Non -Residential Indoor ' Faucet Aerators Description Distribute faucet aerators to reduce flows from faucets in kitchen and bathroom sinks Targeted Group Non-residential accounts with older (pre -1993) faucets ' Low -Flow Faucets Description. Distribute low -flow faucets to reduce flows from faucets in kitchens and bathrooms Accelerates savings that would occur from plumbing code Alternative to faucet aerators Targeted Group- Non-residential accounts with older (pre -1993) faucets Leak Detection and Toilet Flapper Repair Description: Install redesigned, long life toilet flappers in leaking tank -type toilets ' Targeted Group- Non-residential accounts with tank -type toilet flapper leaks Low -Volume Toilets and Urinals Descnption Install 16 gallon per flush toilets to replace high flush toilets and 10 gallon per flush ' urinals to replace high flush unnals Targeted Group. Non-residential accounts with 3 5 gallon per flush toilets or higher and non- residential accounts with high flush urinals ' Efficient Clothes Washing Description Replacing small commercial capacity clothes washers with high efficiency machines in accounts averaging 10 or more loads per day per machine Target Group• Non-residential accounts with small capacity clothes washer use. ' Efficient Dishwashers Description- Install high efficiency dishwashers in accounts providing restaurant or cafeteria food ' services. Targeted Group Non-residential accounts with dishwashing uses Leak Detection and Repair ' Description- Reduce leaks for all types of equipment and end -uses in non-residential accounts with largest leaks Targeted Group Non-residential accounts with the largest leaks ' Improved Kitchen Water Use Description- Decrease water used to rmse, wash, and prepare food items. Targeted Group Non-residential accounts with food preparation uses ' Improved Cooling Systems Description Improve efficiency of largest accounts' HVAC and equipment cooling towers by improving water treatment and increasing cooling tower cycles Targeted Group The largest non-residential accounts with cooling tower uses ' Appendix B - Measure Descriptions B-3 City of Kent ten¢-03-lMpd I June 3, 2003 Install Waterless Urinals Description- Install waterless urinals to replace high flush urinals. Targeted Group. Non-residential accounts with high flush urinals. Stormwater for Toilet and Urinal Flushes Description- Install a stormwater collection and distribution system for toilet and urinal flushing for large scale new construction. Targeted Group- Largest new construction non-residential accounts ' Non -Residential Outdoor Irrigation System Improvements ' Description- Improve the efficiency of existing irrigation system through repair, removal, replacement, or adjustment of in -ground sprinkler system components Targeted Group. Non-residential accounts with manual and automatic imgation systems. ' Improved Irrigation Scheduling Description- Improve the efficiency of existing irrigation system through better irrigation scheduling. ' Targeted Group. Non-residential accounts with manual and automatic irrigation systems Automatic Rain Shut -Off Devices Description: Install automatic rain shut-off devices for automatic irrigation systems Targeted Group- Non-residential accounts with automatic in -ground irrigation systems. Weather -Based Irrigation Controls Description- Convert largest accounts with automatic irrigation systems to centrally controlled ' system that will adjust schedules based upon current weather conditions and plant requirements Targeted Group. The largest non-residential accounts with automatic in -ground irrigation systems. Low -Volume Irrigation Systems ' Description Install dnp/bubbler irrigation systems for new construction and remodeled landscapes that would have relied on in -ground sprinkler systems for 1,000 sq ft of landscaping Targeted Group- Non-residential new construction and remodeled landscapes Efficient Landscaping Practices Description Replace 200 sq ft of lawn with plants having low water use requirements in new construction and remodeled landscapes Targeted Group Non-residential new construction and remodeled landscapes. Improved Soil Amendments 'Description- Improve soil amendments, adding matenal such as compost, to new construction and remodeled landscapes. Targeted Group Non-residential new construction and remodeled landscapes Efficient Sidewalk Cleaning Description Reduce sidewalk and drive cleaning with water by switching to sweeping one-half the time ' Targeted Group Non-residential accounts using water to clean sidewalks. Efficient Car Washing Description Reduce hose car washing by changing to portable, high-pressure, low -flow equipment ' Targeted Group Largest non-residential accounts with hose car washing. Improve Maintenance of Turf Description. Improve turf maintenance through actions such as. thatching, aerating, over -seeding, and top -dressing Targeted Group. Non-residential accounts with irrigated lawn ' Appendix B - Measure Descriptions B-4 City of stent Kmt1203 IlPcpeA I 1 [J [J 1 1 [_1 C' June 3, 2003 Eliminate Single -Pass Decorative Water Features Descnptzon- Install re -circulating equipment on single -pass decorative water features. Targeted Group: Non-residential accounts with single -pass decorative water features Improve Recycle Water for Vehicle Washes Descnphon. Improved control of recycle water use for vehicle washing in largest accounts already using recycling for vehicle washing Targeted Group- The largest non-residential accounts with vehicle washing use ' Appendix B - Measure Descriptions B -B City of Kent Ke -03 112%wd.