refining residential: using customer consumption records ... · april 20, 2010, new bern, nc....
TRANSCRIPT
April 20, 2010, New Bern, NC
Refining Residential:Using customer consumption records to
help manage water servicesUNC Environmental
Finance Center
2009 research for Urban Water Consortium
Contact: Mary Tiger, [email protected], 919-843-4958
Dedicated to enhancing the ability of governments and organizations to provide environmental programs and services in fair, effective and financially sustainable ways
Serving EPA Region 4
Refining residential
• Irrigators?
• Peakers?
• Significant contributors to the bottom line?
• Responsive to drought restrictions and conditions?
Why residential?
Utilities included
• Fayetteville Public Works Commission (PWC)
• Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC)
• City of High Point (HP)
• Charlotte‐Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU)
• Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)
Our method
• Monthly consumption and billing data
• Records from July 2006‐December 2008
Input
• Extensive data cleaning
• Customer‐level analysis
Analysis • Household water use profiles
• Changes in household water use patterns
• Irrigation profile
Output
The climate of the timeline
Drought monitor status
Other major differences
• Demographics (MHI, home ownership, household size)
• Drought policies (triggers)
• Restrictions (voluntary, mandatory, prohibitions)
• Charges (marginal prices, surcharges)
Socioeconomic and housing characteristics
Median household income
% of owned occupied
housing units
Average household size
Fayetteville City $44,086 57% 2.34
Greenville City $32,836 38% 2.08
High Point City $45,861 62% 2.42
Mecklenburg County
$57,033 64% 2.40
Orange County $54,390 59% 2.34
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey (ACS)
Key findings
• Profiling customers– Average water use
– Peaking behavior
• Drought response– Restrictions
– Mediashed effect
– Surcharges
– Irrigation cutoffs
Average water use
8%6%
4%
11%
5%
23%
17%
12%
26%
15%
20%
13%
9%
25%
14%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
PWC GUC HP CMU OWASA
Average Monthly Consumption of High Volume Households
Usage and billed amounts of householdsusing high volumes on average (avg. 11‐20k GPM) in FY08
% of Households % of Total Volume % of Total Billed Amounts
FY08
Drought response ‐ All
Utility Average household water usePercent change
FY07 FY08
CMU 6,436 6,109 ‐5%
PWC 4,980 5,410 +9%
OWASA 4,916 4,501 ‐8%
GUC 4,641 4,788 +3%
HP 4,467 4,199 ‐6%
Restrictions (usage) ‐ Fayetteville
Restrictions (revenue) ‐ Fayetteville
FY07 FY08
Total billed amount $29.6 million $33.0 million
Financial impact of changes in households’ average water use
“Mediashed” – High Point
Drought Surcharges ‐ OWASA
Irrigation shutoffs ‐ OWASA
0.30.3
0.3 0.30.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.7
0.70.8
0.5
0.3
0.1 0.00.0
0.00.2
0.5
0.8 0.8
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.00.0
0.00.0 0.0 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.5 0.5
0.20.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Jul‐0
6
Aug
‐06
Sep‐06
Oct‐06
Nov
‐06
Dec‐06
Jan‐07
Feb‐07
Mar‐07
Apr‐07
May‐07
Jun‐07
Jul‐0
7
Aug
‐07
Sep‐07
Oct‐07
Nov
‐07
Dec‐07
Jan‐08
Feb‐08
Mar‐08
Apr‐08
May‐08
Jun‐08
Jul‐0
8
Aug
‐08
Sep‐08
Oct‐08
Nov
‐08
Dec‐08
Million Gallons
Monthly usage by households with irrigation meters
Irrigation Meter usage (Outdoor Use) Standard meter usage (indoor use)
Metered and estimated irrigation
Utility Number of residential accounts (FY08)
Percentage with irrigation meters
Percent that irrigate with in‐ground systems(estimated)
Fayetteville 75,062 8% 12%
Greenville 29,397 3% 4%
High Point 36,864 3% 4%
CMU 225,247 2% 12%
OWASA 18,018 0.2% 5%
