[Senate Hearing 112-564]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-564
WATER AND ENERGY USE EFFICIENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
EXAMINE THE ROLE OF WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND ITS IMPACT ON ENERGY USE
__________
JULY 25, 2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-232 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington DANIEL COATS, Indiana
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bena, Daniel W., Senior Director, Sustainable Development,
PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, NY.................................... 9
Chaney, GP Russ, CEO, International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials, Ontario, CA.............................. 13
Dickinson, Mary Ann, President/CEO, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Chicago, IL........................................ 18
Green, Henry L., AIA, President, National Institute of Building
Sciences....................................................... 3
Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Utah........................... 2
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire............ 1
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 35
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 47
WATER AND ENERGY USE EFFICIENCY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne
Shaheen presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome, to our panelists.
I am a little embarrassed that we are talking efficiency
today, and it is freezing in this room. It is a challenge that
I have throughout the capitol complex. So, hopefully, as the
result of all of our efficiency discussions, we will be more
efficient on the way we use air conditioning and heat in this
building.
But, I want to welcome all of you. Thank you for those of
you attending this afternoon's hearing. We are here to discuss
water use efficiency, as it relates to energy consumption.
We live in a world of constrained water supplies, with over
60 percent of counties across the country facing drought as we
speak today. The topic of water efficiency is a timely and
urgent issue and one that really demands immediate attention.
Water and energy are interconnected in many ways.
Electricity generation requires substantial amounts of water,
and pumping and treating water requires electricity. Within the
context of efficiency, this water and energy nexus is perhaps
most easily understood by the principle that every drop of
water saved in the U.S. conserves energy, and every unit of
energy saved conserves water.
But, despite this clear link, efforts to improve efficient
water and energy use have traditionally been handled
separately. However, as we will hear today, there is
substantial evidence to show that there is a need to unify
these efforts into a more collaborative and comprehensive
framework.
For example, in one of the only detailed analyses completed
to date addressing the energy-water nexus, the California
Energy Commission found that nearly 20 percent of the State's
electricity and 30 percent of their natural gas consumption is
used to move, treat, and heat water.
Further, inefficiencies in our Nation's infrastructure
emphasize the need to update and improve water delivery
systems. In fact, according to the National Institute of
Building Sciences, nearly 60 percent of electricity and 20
percent of water are lost before water is delivered.
Today's hearing will provide us with an opportunity to
better understand water efficiency and how different techniques
and strategies have been deployed across various sectors of our
economy to save water. For example, typical water-efficient
technologies are being incorporated in plumbing fixtures and
fittings, residential appliances like washing machines and
dishwashers, and wastewater treatment and water filtration
systems. Codes and standards also play a significant role in
the world of water efficiency. Building codes represent an
important foundation for implementing programs and policies
that encourage efficiency.
Together, these emerging technologies and codes and
standards are helping to make great improvements in our efforts
to conserve water and energy.
The private sector is really leading the way in this arena,
finding that it is in their best interest to save water, not
only because it helps their bottom line by saving costs, but
also because consumers want more sustainable products.
Finally, I am looking forward to hearing from our panelists
about what they see as the barriers that currently exist to
more fully deploying water-efficient techniques and
technologies.
I am very pleased to welcome today's witnesses. Our panel
includes: Mr. Henry Green, the President of the National
Institute of Building Sciences; Mr. Daniel Bena, who is the
Senior Director at PepsiCo; Mr. Russ Chaney, CEO of IAPMO
Group; and Mary Ann Dickinson, President and CEO of the
Alliance for Water Efficiency.
I look forward to hearing all of your testimony, and we
will recognize Ranking Member of the Water and Power
Subcommittee, Senator Lee, for his opening comments, before we
go to your testimony.
Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, and I also want to
thank our witnesses who have joined us today. I look forward to
hearing your different perspectives on how we can use our
efforts to promote water use efficiency to also promote
efficiency in energy use.
Senator Shaheen has outlined very well how water and energy
are inextricably connected. I am encouraged that our committee
continues to look at how these two things are connected.
Although the allocation of water is a State-driven process,
through the years, the Federal Government has been involved in
the development of various measures to reduce water and energy
use. The Committee has considered ideas in the past that have
helped reduce the amount of energy to produce water, as well as
ways to reduce the amount of water needed to produce energy.
The reliable development of water and energy constitutes
something of a backbone of our economy. Safe, reliable, and
cost-effective supplies of water and the energy cost of
producing, treating, and cleaning the water will continue to be
a critical driver for all sectors of our economy, including
agriculture, industry, and the domestic sector.
In my State, in the State of Utah, energy production and
water efficiency certainly go hand-in-hand. I believe this
Committee can assist State and local governments with ideas as
to how to more efficiently manage the connection between energy
and water.
I encourage our witnesses today to think outside the box on
different options, to help expand our understanding of how
water and energy are connected.
In addition, I look forward to hearing their perspectives
on the role that local, State, and Federal entities can play in
helping consumers reduce both water and energy use.
I would also like our witnesses to discuss the role that
industry has played in developing technologies that have
already reduced our water use, which, as I understand it, has
led to the greatest reduction of energy use within the
commercial, industrial, and even the domestic sector.
Again, I look forward to hearing what our witnesses, Mr.
Green, Mr. Bena, Mr. Chaney, and Ms. Dickinson, have to say
about these issues here today, each of which is very important.
I am going to have to step out in a few minutes. I
apologize for that, but with your permission, Senator Shaheen,
I will submit those in writing.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Lee.
Mr. Green, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF HENRY L. GREEN, AIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF BUILDING SCIENCES
Mr. Green. Thank you very much, Chairman Shaheen, and
Ranking Member Lee, and the members of this committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am Henry Green and I am President of the National
Institute of Building Sciences. The Institute was established
in 1974 to serve as an authoritative source to make findings
and advise the public and private sector on the use on building
sciences and technology.
The buildings are responsible today for about 40 percent of
the Nation's primary energy use. Three-quarters of the
electricity produced is consumed in the building sector,
representing over $300 billion in expenditures. While these
numbers alone are staggering, they do not reveal the associated
impact on water resources. According to the U.S. GS, electrical
energy is responsible for almost half of the Nation's water
withdrawals. Reduction in water use can also result in
decreased energy demand.
The California Energy Admission found that pumping and
treating drinking water and wastewater represents 19 percent of
the State's electricity load. Consumer water heating represents
32 percent of its gas load. Few other States have done this
kind of analysis, and no such national research exists today.
More comprehensive building water use data is vital to the
continued improvement of water management in buildings. EIA's
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey and the
Residential Energy Consumption Survey provide a long record of
energy use, but no such resource exists for water use. While
CBECS and RECS are not perfect and have recently suffered
funding issues, they remain valuable resources in monitoring
the progress of energy efficiency programs.
Further information is lacking on the end use of water in
commercial buildings. To advance plumbing codes and information
development of water resource programs and pipe-sizing
methodologies, researchers, manufacturers, and utilities, with
Government support, should research and implement advanced
metering and sub-metering technologies. Policymakers should
provide leadership and direction in the development and support
of research programs. The establishment of science-based
metrics will allow a better understanding of how to best
achieve energy and water use efficiencies.
Benchmarking of energy use by commercial building owners
has grown considerably. However, tools and recognition
opportunities do not exist relative to water use. The lack of
data for water use by building type and end use likely
underlies the slow emergence of such programs.
Surprisingly, many water utilities still charge flat rates,
even in water-scarce areas. Construction codes and standards,
State and local governments must require increased use of water
metering. Installing meters and billing according to usage has
been shown to be the single most effective water conservation
measure a water utility can initiate.
Currently, there are no Federal agency that has the mandate
or ability to adequately consider all of the high-performance
building attributes and support the numerous goals placed on
the building community. Just for green buildings, which include
elements of water and energy efficiency, GAO identified 94
initiatives in 11 agencies. A cross-agency working group on
building-related issues to develop holistic strategies for
achieving national goals would be an incredible value.
Water delivery infrastructure provides unique challenges
that are not completely understood. Continued flow reductions
may place the health and safety of occupants and the efficacy
of plumbing systems at risk. Researchers need to better
understand water use in buildings to balance the need for
energy and water efficiency, while maintaining residual
pressures for safety and performance concerns.
EPA's WaterSense program is an essential element of water-
focused benchmarking initiatives, but it focuses solely on
individual products. Such a focus does not assure water-
efficient buildings. Increased funding for the WaterSense
program can help facilitate the development of a comprehensive
WaterSense program for buildings.
Many institutional building owners have relied on ESCOs for
them to determine how, in fact, they can save energy in their
buildings. No such program exists today with respect to water
usage.
The obsession of using potable water for nearly all
applications may not be suitable; however, no Federal
regulation governs water quality or permissible utilization of
non-potable water.
In conclusion, there may be a national research program
focused on understanding the complex relationships between
energy and water, including production, infrastructure,
training, and funding. Consistency of approach, appreciation of
value, and mandates are essential to ensuring the water-energy
nexus is better understood and future decisions are made with
an appreciation for the balance between energy and water
considerations.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henry L. Green, AIA, President, National
Institute of Building Sciences
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
water efficiency, buildings, and the connection between water and
energy.
The National Institute of Building Sciences (Institute) was
established by Congress in 1974 upon recognition of a lack of an
authoritative national source to make findings and to advise both the
public and private sectors on the use of building sciences and
technology to achieve recognized goals (12 USC 1701j-2).
To achieve its mission to support advances in building science and
technology to improve the built environment, the Institute has
established a diverse portfolio of councils and programs that engage
building industry experts in examining and developing tools,
technologies and practices to meet identified needs. This testimony
reflects the diversity of water-related issues identified by many of
our councils, from the Multihazard Mitigation Council and Sustainable
Buildings Industry Council to the Consultative Council.
Water and Energy Use in Buildings
As defined by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA), a high performance building ``integrates and optimizes
on a life cycle basis all major high performance attributes, including
energy conservation, environment, safety, security, durability,
accessibility, costbenefit, productivity, sustainability,
functionality, and operational considerations.'' While water is not
explicitly mentioned, it is an essential consideration in many of these
attributes.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that water, like energy, will
serve as a fundamental focus of building related policies. Recent
drought conditions nationwide, including those in Texas and Georgia,
water shortage declarations in Kentucky and fire prone landscapes
across the country demonstrate the growing need to focus on how we use
water. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 36 states
expect to experience local, regional or statewide water shortages by
2013.\1\ Just last week, the National Climatic Data Center reported
that the nation is experiencing the largest drought since the 1950s. In
June, about 55 percent of the country was in at least a moderate short-
term drought-the highest level since December 1956-and at least 70
percent of the nation is in some state of drought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Water Supply and
Use in the United States (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans use more water in the home than in any other country in
the world, except Canada. Going forward, the U.S. Census Bureau expects
the greatest percentage of regional population growth in areas of the
country where water resources already are stressed. As will be
demonstrated by my testimony and the testimony of others, a holistic
focus on opportunities to use both water and energy efficiently will
provide an economically efficient opportunity to use our resources
wisely.
As you may know, buildings are responsible for approximately 40
percent of the primary energy use in the United States.\2\ Almost three
quarters of the electricity produced in the U.S. is consumed in the
building sector and represents over $300 billion in expenditures.\3\
While these numbers alone are staggering, they do not reveal the
associated impact on water resources. According to the U.S. Geological
Survey, the generation of electricity is responsible for almost half of
the nation's water withdrawals.\4\ This equates to about 23 gallons per
kilowatt hour generated. Therefore, any energy use avoided results in
less water use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Building Energy Data Book, http://
buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/, Table 1.1.3
\3\ Building Energy Data Book, http://
buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/, Table 1.1.9
\4\ Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S.,
Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the
United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, reductions in water use can result in decreased energy
demand. Energy is consumed in the conveyance of water from the source
to the point of treatment, the treatment process itself, the
distribution of water to the point of use, the heating of water during
use, and the wastewater treatment process. The California Energy
Commission found that 19 percent of the state's electric energy load
comes from the pumping and treatment of drinking water and wastewater,
and 32 percent of its gas load is related to the heating of water by
consumers. However, few other states have done this analysis, and there
has been no national research into this important area. These values
reveal the huge potential to achieve significant energy savings through
improved water efficiency measures.
Data and research on water use in the building sector is lacking
and requires a focus at several scales of magnitude. While we have a
long history of energy use data for the building stock in general, from
programs like the Energy Information Administration's Commercial
Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) and the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS), no such resource exists for water use. While
CBECS and RECS are not perfect and have recently suffered from funding
issues, they remain a valuable resource in monitoring the progress of
energy efficiency programs, facilitating changes in codes and
standards, and establishing national goals. The need for more
comprehensive building water use data is vital to the continued
improvement of water management in buildings across the country. The
next version of CBECS will include new data on water use, but more data
and research is needed.
In addition to the need for water usage data for the building stock
as a whole, water use benchmark data by distinct building types do not
exist. Establishment of such a dataset could result in development of
comprehensive benchmark data that supplies a general range of ``water
use intensity'' values represented as gallons per square foot. Water
use intensity values can be used within codes and standards to develop
performance-based standards, by water utilities to identify large and
inefficient users, by water auditors to develop water management
strategies, and by federal and local governments to craft water use
policies. This benchmark data also would provide a means to compare the
water use of one building against another to determine a relative level
of water efficiency.
Further, there is a lack of information on the end uses of water in
commercial buildings and very little research has been conducted on the
topic. Thus, while the aggregate usage data that can be obtained by
traditional metering of various building types is important and will
result in significant water savings, the proper sizing of plumbing
systems and the implementation of other water efficiency strategies
requires a greater understanding of the use patterns associated with
discrete fixtures, appliances and equipment. Such research would
monitor, in real-time, water consuming equipment and processes in
commercial buildings, such as plumbing fixtures; commercial kitchen
equipment; irrigation; laboratory/medical equipment; heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and ornamental
fountains. This data could be examined to understand patterns in water
end use and to support development of metrics that provide benchmarks
on water end uses for distinct building types. To advance plumbing
codes and inform development of water efficiency programs and proper
pipe sizing methodologies, researchers, manufacturers, and utilities
(with governmental support) should research and implement advanced
metering and sub-metering technologies that can provide greater insight
into how water is used in various building types. Building owners,
designers, operations and maintenance staff, policymakers, and codes
and standards developers could utilize such information to more
accurately estimate water use by building type and the potential
savings of efficiency opportunities.
As a first step to development of a water use benchmark and
resulting opportunities to reduce water use, construction codes and
standards must require increased use of water meters in all building
types. This is especially true for multi-family residential buildings
where residents currently lack financial incentive to repair or replace
leaky pipes, plumbing fixtures and appliances. In addition, requiring
water meters for specific use applications within a building will
provide building facility managers with an effective water efficiency
feedback mechanism. These include: makeup water to cooling towers,
evaporative condensers, larger evaporative coolers, fluid coolers,
large boilers, and makeup water supplies to swimming pools.
Given the value of water to the viability and resilience of
communities, the construction community calls on this committee,
Congress at large, and the Administration to provide leadership and
direction towards the development and support of research programs that
will advance the establishment of accepted science-based metrics and
allow better understanding of how to best achieve energy and water use
efficiencies in buildings.
Challenges in Reducing Water and Energy Use
Currently, no federal agency has the mandate or the ability to
adequately consider all high-performance building attributes and
support the numerous goals placed upon the building community.
Considering just green building programs (which include elements of
water and energy efficiency), the Government Accountability Office
identified 94 initiatives housed in 11 agencies.\5\ Opportunities to
increase collaboration across all building issues and within each
individual issue area are necessary. A cross-agency working-group on
building-related issues that could develop holistic strategies for
achieving national goals would be incredibly valuable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO-12-79, Green Building: Federal Initiatives for the
Nonfederal Sector Could Benefit from More Interagency Collaboration,
November 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the somewhat straightforward nature of the energy delivery
infrastructure, water delivery infrastructure provides unique
challenges that are not completely understood. While net-zero energy
use does not generally impact the safety inherent in existing delivery
infrastructure, net-zero water efforts require careful consideration.
Existing water infrastructure and plumbing is based on historic flow
rates. Decisions to implement some water efficiency strategies that
reduce water consumption levels without fully understanding the
systemic implications of reducing flows in water supply pipes and
sanitary systems can result in unintended consequences.
Continued flow reductions on both water supply and sanitary drain
systems, without fully understanding the implications of these flow
reductions, place the health and safety of occupants and the efficacy
of plumbing systems at risk. Researchers need to better understand
water use in buildings to properly size water pipes to balance the
needs for energy and water efficiency with the need to maintain
residual pressures for safety and other performance concerns.
While many water purveyors have fully metered systems, many water
agencies surprisingly still charge customers flat rates, even in water-
scarce regions of the United States. State and local governments must
immediately begin to require that all buildings be metered for water
use, at the gross building level at a minimum, but, ideally, sub-
metered for all significant water uses within the building. Installing
meters and billing according to usage has been shown to be the single
most effective water conservation measure a water utility can initiate.
As recently measured by utilities, unmetered water consumption is
reduced 15 percent to 30 percent when utilities implement metering and
commodity rates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Alliance for Water Efficiency--2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmarking of energy use by commercial building owners has grown
considerably through the development of the Environmental Protection
Agency's EnergyStar for Buildings Program and its Portfolio Manager
Tool; the passage of rating and disclosure requirements in cities like
Seattle, New York, Washington DC, and Philadelphia; and recognition
programs such as ASHRAE's Building Energy Quotient, Building Owners and
Managers Association 360 program, the U.S. Green Building Council's
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the Green
Building Initiative's Green Globes Program. Similar tools and
recognition opportunities do not exist relative to water use. The lack
of benchmarking data for water use by building type and end use likely
underlies the slow emergence of such programs.
Many institutional building owners, including governments,
universities and hospitals, have been working with energy service
companies (ESCOs) to implement and finance energy efficiency
improvements where costs are paid through the resultant energy savings.
Few programs of this type exist to finance water efficiency
improvements. Many private companies may be unwilling to enter this
market because of the lack of benchmark data and an ability to
understand how potential upgrades will ultimately affect water savings
and the associated cost savings. Further, the diversity of pricing
structures for water and the relatively low cost may not make such
efforts economically viable.
The lack of a national policy or plan for addressing water related
issues has kept the need and opportunity in the background. Without a
holistic view of our nation's water needs, policymakers at all levels
of government will have difficulty making appropriate and responsive
decisions. The Institute's Consultative Council has recommended that
the federal government prioritize, coordinate, and support development
of a national water strategy prior to the emergence of inevitable water
shortages.
EPA's WaterSense program is an essential element of the development
of a water focused benchmarking initiative, but focuses solely on
individual pieces of equipment and not the use of water throughout a
building. Increased funding for the WaterSense program can help to
facilitate increased product coverage and potential development of a
WaterSense for Buildings Program.
WaterSense designations only exist for a few product types.
Existing rating systems like LEED and Green Globes only require
efficient plumbing fixtures and do not consider all other indoor water
consuming equipment in buildings, such as commercial kitchen equipment,
cooling towers and water-consuming medical equipment, as well as non-
critical functions, such as ornamental fountains. These partial
requirements on their own do not assure water-efficient buildings
because no benchmark data exists upon which to generate accurate and
defensible performance-based goals. Green building programs in general
provide specification criteria without providing the ``how-to''
information on effective implementation and integration within
buildings. Codes and standards developers and professional
organizations work to fill this gap. Model code developers have already
developed comprehensive ``green'' building or plumbing codes that,
while prescriptive in nature, do address commercial and institutional
applications. Ensuring cooperation across these organizations and their
criteria can help realize the achievement of water efficient buildings.
Education and training on the connection between energy and water
and the opportunities to reduce their use is essential to achieving
national goals in these areas. Specific audiences include operations
and maintenance personnel, architects and engineers, state and local
building departments, policymakers and building occupants. Buildings
have a complex life cycle, from concept, design and construction to
commissioning, occupancy, modification/renovation and deconstruction.
Education and training within the building professions must reflect
this complexity, including the specific skill needs at each point in
the building's life cycle. These lifecycle considerations include
efficient use of energy and water through reduced waste and demand
management, improved occupant comfort and health, and upgrading the
human-building system interface. In each time period within the
building's life cycle, particular segments of the building community
must be engaged and have the requisite knowledge to adequately address
the unique needs within that time period.
While the Institute focuses primarily on the built environment, we
recognize that buildings do not exist in isolation; they rely on
connections to other sectors of the economy. Such connections include
utilities, finance and manufacturing. Understanding these connections
is essential to the design, construction and operation of buildings, so
I will focus some of my testimony on illuminating these connections.
Efficiency and conservation methods within buildings should
continue to be employed in construction designs. However, the backbone
of the nation's electrical and water delivery systems also needs
significant repair and improvement. With nearly 60 percent of
electricity and 20 percent of water being lost before it ever enters
service, significant savings will not be realized until the delivery
systems become more efficient and waste is reduced. Aging supply lines
need to be replaced to ensure proper delivery of both potable water and
water for fire protection. Ten percent of the nation's water
distribution system is over 80 years old and 30 percent is between 40
and 80 years old. Nearly 2 trillion gallons of water is lost annually
through leaks in water pipes. This annual loss equates to an estimated
$1 to $2 billion. Aside from the cost implications, it is estimated
that a five percent reduction in water distribution system leakage
would save 313 million kWh of electricity and avoid approximately
225,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually.\7\ The
American Society of Civil Engineers, in a 2009 report, gave the U.S.
drinking water and wastewater system a D-. The electrical
infrastructure faired only slightly better by earning a D+. Both
systems require significant investments in technology and distribution
systems simply to maintain their current service, let alone to keep up
with growing demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Carbon Footprint of Water, Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspiel and
Wendy Wilson (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Congressional Budget Office estimates from 2002, it
will take $335 billion over the next 20 years to repair and update
water distribution systems and an additional $300 billion to do the
same for sewer systems. The process of repairing the nation's crumbling
infrastructure can create tens of thousands of long-term American jobs.
The United States Conference of Mayors estimates that every job created
through rebuilding water systems creates more than 3.6 jobs elsewhere
and every dollar invested in water infrastructure adds $6.35 to the
national economy.
In an era of constrained water supplies, the very conservative
approach in the United States of using potable water for nearly all
applications may not be sustainable. Reusing lightly contaminated
graywater collected onsite reduces the quantity of potable water
consumed by the facility as non-potable supplies replace potable
supplies. Additionally, sewer systems receive less water. The same
occurs for reclaimed/recycled water, where a portion of the wastewater
generated by entire communities is collected, treated and returned to
facilities for non-potable reuse. This reduces the influent collected
for treatment to potable water standards and also reduces the effluent
discharged to the environment. Treatment of non-potable water also is
less energy-intensive than treatment to potable water standards.
Rainwater harvesting also offsets potable water consumption and has the
added benefit of reducing the quantity of stormwater needing onsite
management.
Interest in the use of non-potable water for various applications
has surged in recent years, driven in part by the emergence of new
stretch codes and standards, as well as the recognition that water is a
finite resource. Numerous applications are available, including water
closet and urinal flushing, cooling tower makeup, automatic fire
suppression systems, landscape irrigation and fountains. Non-potable
water may include rainwater, graywater, reclaimed water and non-potable
water from various other alternative sources. Currently, however, there
are no federal regulations governing water quality or permissible
utilizations for non-potable water. In 2004, the Environmental
Protection Agency released EPA/625/R-04/108, Guidelines for Water
Reuse. While that document is instructive, it is not binding. The
Guidelines for Water Reuse is currently undergoing an update intended
to further streamline it and incorporate the latest findings. The
update is slated for completion by October 2012. The regulations on how
non-potable water can be used in applications inside and outside of
buildings are highly variable throughout the nation. Many states do not
even have such regulations. The lack of uniform regulations is
currently the greatest impediment to more wide-spread use of non-
potable water in buildings and on building sites.
Thermal insulation is routinely used to improve the thermal
efficiency of hot water delivery systems. Although specific
requirements vary, all major building energy codes currently require
some pipe insulation on domestic hot water (DHW) piping. DHW piping
insulation requirements have been based on the energy savings
associated with reduced heat loss from piping systems. However, thermal
insulation also helps conserve water by reducing the time it takes from
the initial demand for water (turning on the tap) until the water is
delivered to the demand point at the required temperature. A study is
needed to quantify the potential energy and water savings associated
with increasing the use of pipe insulation.
In conclusion, there must be a national research program directed
to understand the complex relationship between energy and water,
including production, infrastructure, training and funding. Consistency
of approach, consistency of appreciation of value and consistency of
mandates are essential elements to ensuring the water / energy nexus is
better understood and future decisions are made with an appreciation
for the balance between energy and water considerations.
As the entity charged by Congress to provide an authoritative
source for findings and advice to the public and private sector on the
use of building science and technology to achieve national goals, the
Institute is pleased to offer its expertise to the Subcommittee,
Congress at-large and federal agencies.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bena.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL W. BENA, SENIOR DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT, PEPSICO, INC., PURCHASE, NY
Mr. Bena. Thank you Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee,
and other distinguished members and guests. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you on behalf of PepsiCo and our
environmental sustainability efforts, particularly as they
relate to strengthening water use efficiencies.
My name is Dan Bena and I am the Senior Director of
Sustainable Development for PepsiCo, a global food and beverage
leader with net revenues of more than $65 billion and nearly
300,000 associates worldwide, including more than 100,000 of
whom are employed in the United States.
PepsiCo employees are united around a principle known as
``performance with purpose'', a shared commitment to
sustainable growth through investments in a healthier future
for both people and our planet.
We have made several public commitments around
environmental sustainability based on the principle of
performance with purpose. Particularly germane to this hearing
is the progress we have made in water conservation. By the end
of 2011, 4 years early, we exceeded our system-wide goal to
improve water use efficiency by 20 percent per unit of
production by 2015.
This success and the strategies driving it have been
recognized across the globe. For example, earlier this year,
PepsiCo received the U.S. Water Prize from the Clean Water
America Alliance, and next month, are proud to be the recipient
of Stockholm Industry Water Award.
We have also improved our energy use efficiency by 8.2
percent from a 2006 baseline. These efficiencies represent a
savings of almost $32 million for 2011 and correspond to
approximately 1.5 million megawatt hours of thermal of electric
energy reductions, enough energy to supply nearly 100,000 U.S.
homes for a year.
One of the ways we continue to achieve these results is
through the broad-scale deployment of what we call ReCon,
Resource Conservation, an innovative system used to improve
energy and water use efficiency in our manufacturing
facilities. The ReCon process involves auditing our energy and
water use streams within the plant, assigning relative values
to each, and then focusing in on what can be improved, using
best practices employed throughout PepsiCo.
It is also important to mention that over the last 8 years,
PepsiCo's partnership and relationship with the U.S. EPA ENERGY
STAR program has been very strong. We have been recognized as
partner of the year in energy management in 2007 and partner of
the year in sustained excellence in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and
2012.
Our energy management program has, in fact, been
highlighted in the U.S. EPA's public service announcement, as
saving $179 million, 20 trillion BTUs, and eliminating 3
billion pounds of carbon dioxide since 1999.
Recognition is wonderful, but collaboration is crucial to
resolving the magnitude of the global crises we face today. In
this context, I cite the progress of the Beverage Industry
Environmental Roundtable, a voluntary technical coalition of
leading global beverage companies.
Over the 3-year period, from 2008 to 2010, the industry
aggregate water use ration improved by 9 percent, avoiding the
use of approximately 39 billion liters of water in 2010. That
is enough water to supply the entire population of New York
City for 8 straight days.
However, water and energy use in our food and beverage
facilities is only a small part of the water and energy
picture. Agriculture, in fact, represents 70 percent of water
use globally, 30 percent of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions, and 40 percent of worldwide employment. To improve
resource use in agriculture not only has a significant,
positive impact on our environment, but is critical to
PepsiCo's business.
One way PepsiCo is positively impacting resource use is
through irrigation. Evolving our irrigation methods, from flood
irrigation to pivot to drip can conserve in excess of 70
percent of on-farm water use. We are also piloting innovative
technologies, such as those developed with Cambridge and
Columbia Universities, which have the potential to conserve
billions of gallons of water in agriculture. We have automated
the direct seeding of rice process, growing a staple food crop,
using 20 percent less water and 70 percent fewer greenhouse gas
emissions.
With specific regard to the nexus of water and energy, I
close by sharing the example of our journey to near net zero:
running a facility primarily on renewable energy resources and
recycled water, while producing nearly zero waste. Using
innovative technologies, our Casa Grande, Arizona facility is
generating two-thirds of all energy used from renewable sources
and is working toward the goals of 75 percent of the water to
be recycled, 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,
and an 80 percent reduction in the use of natural gas. These
results are not the product of imposed regulation; they are the
result of understanding the nexus between business value and
social performance.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and thank
Chairwoman Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee for allowing us to
share PepsiCo's perspectives on its environmental
sustainability efforts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bena follows:]
Statement of Daniel W. Bena, Senior Director, Sustainable Development,
PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, NY
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bingaman
and Ranking Member Murkowski for their important work on this
Committee. I would like to specifically thank Subcommittee Chairwoman
Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee for holding this hearing and inviting
PepsiCo to talk about its efforts to reduce energy usage and improve
water efficiency.
My name is Dan Bena, and I am the Senior Director of Sustainable
Development for PepsiCo, the largest food and beverage company in North
America and second globally, with net revenues of more than $65 billion
and a product portfolio that includes 22 brands that generate more than
$1 billion each in annual retail sales. With nearly 300,000 associates
worldwide--over 100,000 of which are employed in the United States--
and serving consumers in more countries and territories than the United
Nations has member States, PepsiCo's people are united by what we call
Perfounance with Purpose. Performance with a Purpose is a principle
through which PepsiCo is committed to sustainable growth by investing
in a healthier future for people and our planet. We believe this means
a more successful future for PepsiCo.
In this context, we have made several public commitments around
environmental sustainability. Specifically, to:
help conserve global water supplies, especially in water-
stressed areas, and provide access to safe water;
continue to make our packaging increasingly sustainable,
minimizing our mpact on the environment;
work to eliminate solid waste sent to landfills from our
production facilities; work to achieve an absolute reduction in
GHG emissions across our global businesses; and,
continue to support sustainable agriculture by expanding
best practices with our growers and suppliers.
Particularly germane to the focus of this subcommittee is the
progress we have made in the area of water conservation. We established
a system-wide goal in 2006 to improve our water use efficiency by 20
percent by 2015, and I am proud to advise that by the end of 2011, we
exceeded that goal--four years earlier than our target. This progress
is being recognized in a number of ways such as PepsiCo's receipt of
the US Water Prize this year from the Clean Water America Alliance, and
receipt of the Stockholm Industry Water Award.
We have also improved our energy use efficiency by 8.2 percent from
a 2006 baseline. This represents an estimated $32 MM savings in 2011,
which corresponds to approximately 1.5 million MWH of thermal and
electric energy. This is equivalent to the average annual energy
consumption for nearly 100,000 US homes.
PepsiCo's vehicle fleet has and will continue to play a critical
role in the achievement of our energy reduction targets. For example,
in 2008, our Frito-Lay business in the United States set a goal to
reduce fossil fuel dependency 50 percent by 2020 and become the most
fuel efficient fleet in North America. Over the last four years, with a
portfolio of solutions tied to people, process, and technology, Frito-
Lay has reduced fuel usage by 14 percent and has built a glide path to
the 50 percent reduction. This 14 percent reduction in fuel usage from
Frito-Lay North America eliminated 6,600,000 gallons of gasoline, which
is equivalent to taking more than 11,000 cars off the road.
One of the ways we continue to achieve these results is through the
broad-scale deployment of ReCon (Resource Conservation)--an innovative
system used to improve energy and water use efficiency in our
manufacturing facilities. Through the ReCon process, we audit our
energy and water management practices, compare all energy and water
uses and costs, and assign relative values to each in order to zero in
on what can be improved. Then we make adjustments based on best
practices used throughout PepsiCo.
Since 2008, PepsiCo has executed a strategic engagement program
reduced fuel usage by 14 percent and has built a glide path to
the 50 percent reduction. This 14 percent reduction in fuel usage from
Frito-Lay North America eliminated 6,600,000 gallons of gasoline, which
is equivalent to taking more than 11,000 cars off the road.
One of the ways we continue to achieve these results is through the
broad-scale deployment of ReCon (Resource Conservation)--an innovative
system used to improve energy and water use efficiency in our
manufacturing facilities. Through the ReCon process, we audit our
energy and water management practices, compare all energy and water
uses and costs, and assign relative values to each in order to zero in
on what can be improved. Then we make adjustments based on best
practices used throughout PepsiCo.
Since 2008, PepsiCo has executed a strategic engagement program
secure most of the funding needed to begin this research by
securing funding from other NGOs and the private sector. The
member organizations of PERC are self funding the remainder of
the cost. I think we can all agree that it should not be so
difficult to conduct this desperately needed research.
The EPA should take the lead in the development of uniform
national non-potable water-quality standards applicable to
various permissible utilizations of non-potable water. Water-
irements with respect to ensuring that individual plumbing
fixtures are of very high efficiency. But the building
n you can
actually get the local government, or the National or the
international government to collaborate legitimately with the
private sector, and you bring NGO's to the party, and you bring
academia to the party, the result is--you know, people use the
word synergy, right; one plus one equals three. A lot of times
that's overused. But with those kinds of collaborations, I
think it's absolutely true.
initiative to suppliers in South America and
Europe in 2011. We anticipate similar results and would be happy to
share them with the committee once they are available.
Question 4. I'm interested to learn more about PepsiCo's
sustainable agriculture program and the irrigation strategies employed
to conserve water. How are these strategies assisting in water scarce
areas and how effective would they be in drought ridden areas of the
United States?
Answer. PepsiCo's vision for sustainable agriculture is about
increasing productivity and reducing risk for the benefit of our
farmers and supply chain. Solutions to agricultural efficiency and
productivity issues resulting from our environment demand that we ask
and answer tough questions such as the impact of climate change.
We know we can effect change with our growers, because we have
direct touch-points with them. For example, in 2010, we began the
Sustainable Farming Initiative, a program that defines standardized
metrics for sustainable agriculture and can be applied to any country,
any crop, any size land base and for any farmer, large or small. It
consists of establishing best practices within three pillars:
environmental, social and economic. We started identifying
sustainability indicators within the environmental pillar in 2011.
Since then, nine indicators have been identified, including: soil,
water, air, energy, agrochemicals, nutrients, GHGs, waste and
biodiversity. Detailed criteria and best practices are being developed
to address each one of the nine indicators. We are in the process of
developing the social and economic pillars, which include identifying
indicators covering health and safety, employment practices and working
conditions, among others. We expect to launch the complete program
globally in 2013 and are striving for our growers and agricultural
suppliers to be compliant with the program by 2020.
Even more basic, and a core part of our Sustainable Agriculture
Policy, the Sustainable Farming Initiative, and our day-to-day
agricultural practices in the field with our growers, is resource
conservation.
We continue to invest in a portfolio of water-conserving
technologies and techniques here in the United States and around the
world, both through our business and through our philanthropic arm, the
PepsiCo Foundation. For example, in addition to evolving our irrigation
practices from traditional flood irrigation, to central pivot, and
ultimately to drip, we developed ``i-crop'' technology in partnership
with the University of Cambridge in the UK. I-crop uses a variety of
climatic sensors, GPS mapping, and root-zone water measurements,
coupled with ``cool farm software,'' to deliver precisely the amount of
water needed to the root zone, precisely when it is needed.
The PepsiCo Foundation, in partnership with the Columbia University
th zero
added cost.
IAPMO stands ready to work with the Federal government and other
stakeholders to gain a better understanding about how water is being
used in different building types so that we can make our plumbing
systems efficient as possible while maintaining health and safety and
ensuring system efficacy.
Question 3. You referred to ``smart'' water in your testimony. What
sort of similarities do you see between a smart water infrastructure
and smart grid and how can IAPMO assist in a smart water initiative?
Answer. As plumbing code developers, we are certainly not experts
regarding the technical merits or capabilities of a smart electrical
grid. However, in our view, there are conceptual similarities in
functionality that can be shared. Specifically, a smart water
distribution system would contain sensors to alert the owners of the
system to a catastrophic leak or failure and allow for the isolation of
such a failure in order to minimize the disruption of service to users,
minimize water waste and also mitigate the potential for contaminates
to infiltrate the whole distribution system.
It is also important to note, that as code developers, our area of
jurisdiction and expertise is contained to plumbing systems in
buildings, and not to water distribution systems. Leak detection
technologies can also be used in building plumbing systems to provide
real time feedback to building managers, enabling the repair of
otherwise insidious leaks that not only waste water and energy but can
also damage other building elements if left unrepaired.
IAPMO can assist by working within our compliance based code
development process to help codify such smart technologies and,
assuming such provisions are adopted by our members, require their
installation in new construction.
Question 4. How can IAPMO collaborate with major water utilities to
provide a unified water efficiency and conservation message to the
American public?
Answer. When we consider our looming water crisis, it becomes
apparent that much is needed in the way of public education and
awareness. As mentioned during the hearing, we need to initiate a
candid discussion about water with the American consumer.
IAPMO stands ready to work with water utilities across the country,
both large and small, and with Federal government entities such as the
EPA WaterSense division, towards the development of consumer awareness
and education materials that can be included in utility bill and made
available on the internet.
Our role in such an effort would be to advise home owners and
commercial building owners regarding water efficiency technologies that
can reduce consumption and save them money, while also making sure that
these technologies are installed in a manner that ensures safety and
meets plumbing code provisions.
Responses of GP Russ Chaney to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Please describe the similarities and differences
between the water ``grid'' and the electric grid. How are these two
connected?
Answer. As we mentioned in our response to one of Senator Shaheen's
questions, as plumbing code developers, we are certainly not experts
regarding the technical merits or capabilities of a smart electrical
grid. Having said that, as we gain better understanding of the nexus
between water and energy it becomes increasingly clear that efforts to
foster water efficiency also yield surprising energy efficiencies and
vice versa.
Question 2. What are the unknowns between the interconnectedness of
g products no longer protect the health and safety of consumers.
In fact, PMI is currently part of the Plumbing Research Efficiency
Coalition (PERC) which is undertaking a building drainline research
study that will analyze the potential for blockages resulting from the
use of reduced flow water closets in commercial buildings and evaluate
the use of higher volume flush valve discharges at intermittent
intervals as a way to effectively clear drainlines.
The PERC research is intended to answer important questions about
product performance and design considerations at lower flow rates. Once
the research is complete, product/water efficiency questions will be
able to be answered with facts and research data. We may, in fact, be
at the practical limits of efficiency and any further reductions in
efficiency levels in some consumer plumbing products, specifically
toilets and showerheads, need to be based on scientific study in order
to ensure continued efficacy and safety in addition to increased levels
of water and energy efficiency.
The funding for this study took years to secure and came from code
organizations, a variety of trade associations, including PMI,
individual plumbing manufacturing companies and NGOs. Unfortunately,
the federal agencies declined to support this critical PERC research.
In the future, the federal government should be involved in the
development of key research programs and provide some financial support
for scientific study to ensure that increasingly precious water
supplies are used as efficiently as possible in buildings and homes,
while maintaining health and safety.
EPA's WaterSense program is an essential element in the development
of a water focused benchmarking initiative, but focuses on individual
plumbing products and not the use of water throughout commercial
buildings.
Conclusion
PMI member companies are committed to designing and producing
water-efficient products, without sacrificing performance. We
understand the importance of both water conservation and energy
reduction. Our association and its members continue to raise the bar in
developing the most advanced water efficient plumbing products and
further our commitment to preserving our environment. Our efforts will
help ensure reliable water supplies today and for future generations.
We look forward to working with the committee in the 113th Congress
to further discuss the important nexus of water efficient plumbing
products and its impact on energy use. In the meantime, if you have any
questions regarding our statement, contact Barbara Higgens, Executive
Director, Plumbing Manufacturers International.
ng, volumes, or
irrigation--increase irrigation efficiency.
The reason we are asking for this is because of the clear
embedded energy benefits that this investment would provide
nationally, as well as additional jobs in this area.
So, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dickinson follows:]
Statement of Mary Ann Dickinson, President/CEO, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Chicago, IL
The Alliance for Water Efficiency is pleased to participate in this
hearing on the important connection between water and energy, and we
greatly appreciate the strong leadership of Senator Shaheen and the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on this issue. The
Alliance is a non-profit organization of diverse stakeholders with
experience in water conservation programs and policies, and dedicated
to furthering the efficient and sustainable use of water in North
America. It is the only national organization devoted solely to this
purpose.
We have been interested in the relationship between water and
energy since we were founded five years ago. A project of which we are
particularly proud is a joint effort we undertook with the American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) in 2010, to coalesce
the views of 75 organizations involved in the water-energy arena. The
ed a study
on the energy efficiency impacts of hard water. The study concluded
that scale formed by hard water can lead to as much as a 24 percent
loss of energy efficiency in water heaters and that treatment with
water softeners preserved the original factory efficiency ratings of
water heaters over a 15-year lifetime. Are you familiar with this study
and its conclusions?
Answer. The WQA / Battelle study was provided to our Green
Technical Committee and was considered in the development of certain
provisions contained in the IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code
Supplement. As such, yes, we are familiar with this study and its
conclusions.
Question 6. Based on these types of results and the potential
impact of hard water on energy efficiency, do you believe that reducing
or eliminating scale is an important factor in allowing appliances such
as water heaters to maintain their Energy Star ratings?
Answer. Clearly, reducing the buildup of scale in water heaters
impacts the efficiency of water heaters whether it is an Energy Star
labeled product or not. Scale also robs energy and water efficiency by
clogging plumbing fixture fittings such as faucets and showerheads.
However, the Green Technical Committee did find cause for concern with
nancial support for scientific study to ensure that
increasingly precious water supplies are used as efficiently as
possible in buildings, while maintaining health and safety.
Finally, we ask that thwith suppliers in North America, and by the end of 2011 the program
involved 50 suppliers representing over 120 facilities. These suppliers
leveraged the ReCon program to deliver a single-year 2.5 percent
improvement in thermal energy efficiency, 7 percent improvement in
electrical energy efficiency and an 18.7 percent reduction in waste-to-
landfill. This corresponds to an estimated productivity improvement of
nearly $2 million in 2011.
Throughout the last eight years, PepsiCo's partnership and
relationship with the EPA Energy Star program has been very strong.
PepsiCo has been an active participant with the Food Processing Focus
Team and has spoken at a number of Energy Star events. Our Energy
Management Program has been highlighted in the EPA's Public Service
Announcements (see Addendum One*). The EPA's Guidelines for Energy
Management have been used as the foundation of PepsiCo's successful
internal and external Energy Management/Sustainability programs. And,
as a direct result of PepsiCo's Supplier/Co-Packer Outreach Program,
more than 150 additional companies have joined the Energy Star Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All addendums have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since joining the EPA Energy Star program, PepsiCo has been
recognized with awards for Partner of the Year in Energy Management in
2007 and Partner of the Year in Sustained Excellence in 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012.
Recognition is great, but no single company can alone resolve the
magnitude of the global crises we face today, which is why
collaboration and partnership are so critical for lasting solutions and
impact. In this context, I cite the progress of the Beverage Industry
Environmental Roundtable (BIER). The Beverage Industry Environmental
Roundtable is a technical coalition of leading global beverage
companies working together to advance environmental sustainability
within the beverage sector. Formed in 2006, BIER aims to accelerate
sector change and create meaningful impact on environmental
sustainability, including water efficiency, matters. Through
development and sharing of industry-specific analytical methods, best
practice sharing, and direct stakeholder engagement, BIER accelerates
the process of analysis to sustainable solution development.
Each year, the industry water dataset continues to grow in size,
with 2011 representing the most robust report to date, including over
1,600 facilities distributed across six continents. Analyses were
conducted to determine industry water use, production, and water use
ratio over a three year period from 2008-2010. Over this period, the
industry aggregate water use ratio improved by 9 percent, avoiding the
use of approximately 39 billion liters of water in 2010. To put this in
context, this is enough water to supply the entire population of New
York City for eight days (see Addendum Two).
However, water and energy use in our food and beverage facilities
is only a small part of the picture. Agriculture represents
approximately 70 percent of water use globally, and as high as 90
percent in developing economies; 30 percent of the world's greenhouse
gas emissions; and 40 percent of the worldwide employment. To improve
resource use in agriculture is to have significant positive impact on
the environment.
Improved resource use also makes good business sense. For example,
six out of 10 of PepsiCo's top-sourced raw materials are agricultural.
We conduct agricultural operations in 30 countries. For PepsiCo,
maintaining a sustainable supply chain is paramount to minimizing risks
to our business operations.
One of the ways that we are maintaining a sustainable supply chain
is by focusing on irrigation. The irrigation methods employed by
PepsiCo are constantly evolving to better meet the needs of local
communities. Irrigation methods such as flood, pivot, and drip can
conserve in excess of 70 percent of farm water use. We are piloting
technology such as i-crop, developed in partnership with Cambridge
University, and low-cost tensiometers, developed in partnership with
the PepsiCo Foundation and the Earth Institute, both of which have the
potential to conserve billions of gallons of water in agriculture.
We are also testing innovative approaches to reduce on-farm
greenhouse gas emissions. One example is with our US Tropicana
business, where the single biggest contributor to Tropicana's carbon
footprint wasn't the transport of the juice to stores or the energy
required to operate a modern citrus farm. Rather, it was the fertilizer
used to grow the orange trees. A great deal of natural gas is used to
make nitrogen fertilizer, and a great deal of fertilizer is used on
citrus trees--so much that fertilizer accounted for 15 percent of the
total carbon footprint for our orange juice. We have partnered with a
company called Yara, to pilot an alternative fertilizer. If successful,
the greener fertilizers could lower the carbon footprint of PepsiCo's
citrus growers by as much as 50 percent and reduce the total carbon
footprint of Tropicana orange juice by up to 12 percent. Given how much
fertilizer is used throughout the U.S. farming system as a whole--more
than 13 million tons of nitrogen in 2007 alone--a greener way to help
plants grow could put a serious dent in U.S. carbon emissions (see
Addendum Three).
Finally, understanding this subcommittee's interest in the nexus
between water and energy, I share two initiatives at PepsiCo of which
we are especially proud.
The first is our snacks manufacturing facility in Casa Grande,
Arizona. A few years ago, Frito-Lay set out on an ambitious mission to
transform an existing facility so that it would run primarily on
renewable energy sources and recycled water while producing nearly zero
waste. We called this effort ``near net zero.'' We chose the Casa
Grande, Arizona facility because of its location, where sunlight is
plentiful and water conservation is important, and its size--big enough
to be effective, yet small enough to be manageable. Frito-Lay invested
in and implemented a combination of technologies to enable Casa Grande
to significantly reduce the use of key natural resources and reduce the
site's overall environmental footprint. Using innovative technologies,
our Casa Grande facility is generating two-thirds of all energy used
from renewable sources and is working towards significant reductions.
Specifically, 75 percent of the water is recycled, 50 percent reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions, and an 80 percent reduction in the use of
natural gas (see Addendum Four).
Finally, we understand the importance of lasting change being
within reach only when large-scale policies are enacted. In Gujarat,
India, PepsiCo Foundation partnered with the Columbia University Water
Center to test a new approach to positively impact food security, water
security, and climate security--all in one model. The details are
supplied in a white paper as Addendum Five, but, in short this paper
presents the results of the Columbia Water Center's study of the severe
groundwater crisis in the Mehsana region of Northern Gujarat, India.
The study concludes that the current pattern of groundwater
exploitation is both costly for the state and unsustainable for
farmers, and could lead to the complete failure of agriculture in the
area within a few years if left unchecked. The study was conducted as
the first phase of a multi-phased project designed to help conserve
water and energy while improving farmer incomes in North Gujarat.
Future papers will outline the initial outcomes of the area pilot
project along with resulting recommendations for policymakers in the
area.
Again, I would like to thank Chairwoman Shaheen and Ranking Member
Lee for giving PepsiCo this opportunity to share its perspectives.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Bena.
Mr. Chaney.
STATEMENT OF GP RUSS CHANEY, CEO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS, ONTARIO, CA
Mr. Chaney. Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee, and
members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to
sit before the Subcommittee on Water and Power to discuss the
critically important issue of water use, water efficiency, and
the important impact water efficiency has upon our country's
overall energy use.
My name is Russ Chaney and I am the CEO of the IAPMO Group.
The IAPMO Group led by the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials was founded in 1926. With
membership of approximately 8,300 members, IAPMO publishes the
Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform
Solar Energy Code, and the Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot
Tub Code, all designated by ANSI, as American National
Standards.
In 2010, IAPMO published the first green construction code
in the United States, the Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code
Supplement. The Green Supplement is a separate document from
the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and it establishes
requirements for a green building, water efficiency, and water
reuse, applicable to plumbing, mechanical, and solar energy
systems.
The Green Supplement serves as a resource for many
progressive jurisdictions across the country that are
implementing green building and water efficiency programs. By
adhering to the water efficiency provisions found within the
Green Supplement, 35 percent water savings over baseline code
and EPAct level requirements can be obtained in both
residential and commercial buildings.
Just last month, IAPMO was invited to join the United
States Water Partnership. This partnership, which was unveiled
by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, includes nearly all
Federal agencies and many other notable organizations.
IAMPO recognizes that, especially here in the United
States, the energy embedded in water is both grossly under-
recognized as an area of opportunity where energy savings can
be cost-effectively realized, and is underutilized as a source
of clean, renewable energy.
In January 2012, the U.S. EPA officially delegated the
development of a heat metering standard to a partnership of
ASTM International and IAPMO. This standard will greatly assist
the country in realizing the benefits, and improving the
acceptance, of solar thermal, radiant, and other hydronic
technologies.
IAPMO also recognizes that the only way for an integrated
water use strategy to be successful is to minimize consumption
and maximize recovery. Fully developed codes and standards
addressing the safe installation and use of water reuse
technologies, such as rainwater catchment systems, gray water
systems, and systems--municipally supplied reclaimed water will
be critical to eliminate barriers, while maintaining health and
safety.
However, much more needs to be done to address our water
and energy needs. We ask that the Federal Government develop
incentives for State and local governments to adopt and
properly enforce comprehensive Green Plumbing codes.
We ask that the Federal Government support the research and
development of less invasive water metering and sub-metering
technologies, and then deploy these technologies to better
understand the complex water use patterns associated with
various building types. This will yield very significant water
and energy efficiencies, through smarter-sizing of our
buildings' plumbing systems.
We ask that the Federal Government consider incentives to
building owners that voluntarily have their buildings audited,
and then implement the results of those audits to reduce their
energy and water use.
We ask the Federal Government to provide incentives for
State and local governments to require water utilities to
conduct independent leakage audits and to report the percentage
of water leaking from their distribution systems, along with a
plan for the repair and update of those systems, that
demonstrate excessive leakage.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our
leaking water infrastructure wastes over 7 billion gallons of
potable water every day. Now, please keep in mind that this is
water that has been treated to strict and expensive drinking
water standards. Frankly, we find it is unacceptable that we
ask our Nation's manufacturers to continually trim tenths of a
gallon off the consumption levels of their products, at
considerable cost to both them and the end consumer, when so
much water is being lost between the point of treatment and the
point of use. This is an area that must be improved upon.
The Federal Government should become more actively engaged
in the development of necessary research programs and provide
financial support for scientific study to ensure that
increasingly precious water supplies are used as efficiently as
possible in buildings, while maintaining health and safety.
Finally, we ask that the Federal Government support the
integration of IT-based networks, into both our Nation's water
distribution systems and within our build--our Nation's
buildings, in order to help create smart water systems as part
of a national water strategy.
As you know, there is no substitute for water. While we
will always be able to use the incredible ingenuity of the
American people to find alternate sources of energy as our
needs and circumstances evolve, we must recognize that there
simply is no substitute for water.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaney follows:]
Prepared Statement of GP Russ Chaney, CEO, International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, Ontario, CA
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee and members of the
subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to sit before the
Subcommittee on Water and Power to discuss the critically important
issue of water use, water efficiency and the important impact water
efficiency has upon our country's overall energy use.
My name is Russ Chaney, Chief Executive Officer for the IAPMO
Group. The IAPMO Group, led by the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, was founded in 1926, and remains the
pre-eminent code development, product certification and testing, and
training/curriculum providing organization for plumbing, mechanical,
swimming pool, solar and radiant heating industries in the United
States and around the world. With approximately 8,300 members, IAPMO
remains the only standards body where plumbing, mechanical and solar
codes are developed employing a true and fully voluntary consensus
process. We proudly publish our flagship model codes, the Uniform
Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Solar Energy Code and
Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code, as designated as American
National Standards, accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI).
IAPMO's membership is comprised of plumbing and mechanical
professionals, inspectors, engineers, code officials, manufacturers of
plumbing, mechanical and building products, plumbing and mechanical
contractors, water and energy efficiency experts--all areas and
expertise required in the design, installation and maintenance of our
country's plumbing, mechanical, solar and hydronic systems.
In addition to providing code development assistance, The IAPMO
Group provides critically needed training and education programs,
including the Green Plumbers USA program, an industry-leading plumbing
and mechanical product testing and certification program, a building
products evaluation service and a manufacturer-preferred quality
assurance program.
In 2010, IAPMO published the first green construction code in the
United States, the IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement.
The Green Supplement is a separate document from the Uniform Plumbing
and Mechanical codes and establishes requirements for green building,
water efficiency and water reuse applicable to plumbing, mechanical,
and solar energy systems. The Green Supplement serves as a resource for
many progressive jurisdictions across the country that are implementing
green building and water-efficiency programs. By adhering to the water-
efficiency provisions found within the Green Supplement, 35 percent
water savings over baseline code and EPAct level requirements can be
attained in both residential and commercial buildings.
Each component of The IAPMO Group works toward playing an integral
part in protecting the health of people everywhere and toward making
the most efficient use of our nation's most precious resource.
Just last month, IAPMO was invited to join a critically important
initiative on international water efforts in the United States Water
Partnership. This partnership, which was originally unveiled by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March, includes partners such
Coca-Cola, Proctor and Gamble, the Water Institute at the University of
North Carolina, nearly all federal agencies and many other notable
organizations. The purpose of this partnership is:
``To ensure sustainable and equitable water management that
benefits people and our environment through:
Improving access and quality of service for water,
sanitation and hygiene.
Advancing integrated water resource management.
Increasing efficiency and productivity of water use.
Improving governance through stronger public and private
institutions, policies and processes.''
This is a very exciting initiative that will help address water
problems on a global scale.
IAPMO is proud to be a contributor to the National Institute of
Building Science's Consultative Council by chairing the council's Water
and Energy Efficiency Topical Committee, and we fully support the
recommendations put forth by the council as published in the
institute's Annual Report to the President of the United States.
IAPMO recognizes that, especially here in the United States, the
energy embedded in water is both grossly under-recognized as an area of
opportunity where energy savings can be cost effectively realized and
is underutilized as a source of clean, renewable energy.
On Jan. 20, 2012, the U.S. EPA officially delegated the development
of a Heat Metering standard to a partnership of ASTM International and
IAPMO. Since that time, IAPMO and ASTM International have worked to
expand the scope of their combined efforts on solar thermal
technologies in support of the Heat Metering standardization project.
These efforts will greatly assist the country in realizing the
benefits--and improving the acceptance--of solar thermal, radiant and
other hydronic technologies.
IAPMO also recognizes that that the only way for an integrated
water-use strategy to be successful is to minimize consumption and
maximize recovery. Fully developed codes and standards addressing the
safe installation and use of water-reuse technologies such as rainwater
catchment systems, gray water systems and municipally supplied
reclaimed water will be critical to eliminate barriers while
maintaining health and safety. In 2012, we formally adopted all
technical provisions on water reuse from our Green Supplement into our
baseline model code, the Uniform Plumbing Code. As such, the Uniform
Plumbing Code became the first baseline code to provide guidance on the
safe use of these technologies, along with a path of compliance for the
installation of these systems in a model construction code.
As significant as these accomplishments--and the combined
accomplishments of all the dedicated and talented people who comprise
our nation's standards and codes developing organizations--are, much
more needs to be done to address our water and energy needs.
Specifically, we respectfully ask that the federal government consider
the following actions that will greatly assist the private sector in
moving forward toward a more water and energy efficient future:
We ask that the federal government develop incentives for
state and local governments to adopt and properly enforce
comprehensive green plumbing codes. As good as our nation's
codes are, if they are not adopted and enforced at the local
level, the country cannot realize the efficiencies these codes
provide.
We ask that the federal government support the research and
development of less invasive water metering and sub-metering
emerging technologies and then deploy these technologies to
better understand complex water-use patterns associated with
various building types. This will yield very significant water
and energy efficiencies through smarter sizing of our
building's plumbing systems.
Widespread energy and water auditing will provide data and
information required to establish more accurate baseline
metrics and will help prioritize the installation of energy-
and water-efficient technologies that provide the best return
on investment and real-time or near real-time feedback to
building owners. We ask that the federal government consider
incentives for building owners who voluntarily have their
buildings audited and implement the results of those audits to
reduce their energy and water use.
We ask that the federal government provide incentives for
state and local governments to require water utilities to
conduct independent leakage audits and report the percentage of
water leaking from their distribution systems, along with a
plan for the repair and update of systems that demonstrate
excessive leakage. Much is known about the needs of our aging
water infrastructure and it is critically important that these
issues be addressed. According to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, our water infrastructure rates a grade of D-minus
with over 7 billion gallons of potable water a day wasted due
to leaking water infrastructure. Keep in mind, that this is
water that has been treated to strict and expensive drinking
water standards and contains all of the embedded energy
embodied in such treatment and delivery. Frankly, we find it
unacceptable that we ask our nation's manufacturers to
continually trim tenths of a gallon off of the consumption
levels of their products--at considerable cost to both them and
to the end consumer--when so much water is being lost between
the point of treatment and the point of use. This is an area
where improvement is necessary.
The federal government should become more actively engaged
in the development of necessary research programs and provide
financial support for scientific study to ensure that
increasingly precious water supplies are used as efficiently as
possible in buildings while maintaining health and safety.
IAPMO, along with the Alliance for Water Efficiency, the
American Society of Plumbing Engineers, the Plumbing
Manufacturers International, the International Code Council and
the Plumbing--Heating--Cooling Contractors Association is a
founding member of the Plumbing Research Efficiency Coalition,
PERC, which is conducting a research program on the impact of
reduced flows on building drains. This research is needed to
ensure that we do not experience unintended consequences
related to our water-efficiency efforts. The entire plumbing
industry is concerned that we may be reaching tipping points at
which plumbing products and systems fail to operate as intended
and risk the health and safety of our citizens. We may, in
fact, be at the practical limits of efficiency and any further
reductions in efficiency levels in some consumer products,
specifically toilets and showerheads, need to be based on
scientific study in order to ensure continued efficacy and
safety in addition to increased levels of water and energy
efficiency. Sadly, PERC struggled mightily to secure the meager
funding needed to support their research effort and was turned
away on numerous occasions when seeking support from the
federal government. Fortunately, however, PERC was able to
secure most of the funding needed to begin this research by
securing funding from other NGOs and the private sector. The
member organizations of PERC are self funding the remainder of
the cost. I think we can all agree that it should not be so
difficult to conduct this desperately needed research.
The EPA should take the lead in the development of uniform
national non-potable water-quality standards applicable to
various permissible utilizations of non-potable water. Water-
quality standards should reflect the minimum water-quality
parameters required to protect public health and safety and
protect the integrity and function of plumbing systems and
devices.
Finally, we encourage the Federal Government to earnestly
begin work on the development of a comprehensive and
coordinated water strategy to meet the needs of our growing
nation. We applaud the efforts of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in convening stakeholders for a
White House summit to discuss the role of emerging technology
in addressing our nation's water needs and concerns. Our water
strategy should include requirements for the incorporation of
IT based systems and components into all water distribution
projects that receive Federal funding. These IT enhanced
systems, characterized as ``smart water systems'' will be
capable of monitoring for leaks thus ensuring efficiency and
more consistent compliance to the requirements of our safe
drinking water standards. Similar technologies can also be
deployed in building plumbing systems providing real time
feedback to building managers. As we go about the necessary
work of repairing our water infrastructure and plumbing
systems, we must also modernize these systems as well in order
to maximize the full potential of our investments.
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee and members of the
subcommittee, it is indeed an honor to be able to provide these
comments to you today. As you know, there is no substitute for water.
While we will always be able to use the incredible ingenuity of the
American people to find alternate sources of energy as our needs and
circumstances evolve, we must recognize that there simply is no
substitute for water. We rely on access to safe, clean water every day.
Last summer the state of Texas was stricken with a severe drought
that resulted in the closure of businesses in the impacted areas.
Already this summer, according to the National Climate Data Center,
well over 50 percent of the nation is experiencing drought conditions
resulting in the worst drought crisis since the 1950's. Combined with
certain population growth, especially in the most water-challenged
regions of our country, these realities illustrate that the time to
take action on our water-related needs is now.
The good news is that addressing these needs carries with it
profound job-creation opportunities. The United States Conference of
Mayors estimates that every job created through rebuilding water
systems creates more than 3.6 jobs elsewhere and every dollar invested
in water infrastructure adds $6.35 to the national economy.
Retrofitting of buildings and homes that still have older water-
guzzling plumbing fixtures and fittings with high-efficiency models can
create thousands of additional jobs and yield substantial water and
energy savings at the same time. Let's take advantage of these
opportunities to address two urgent national needs: job creation and
ensuring a secure water future for the United States of America.
Again, I appreciate your time today and look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chaney.
Ms. Dickinson.
STATEMENT OF MARY ANN DICKINSON, PRESIDENT/CEO, ALLIANCE FOR
WATER EFFICIENCY, CHICAGO, IL
Ms. Dickinson. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, Senator Lee.
The Alliance for Water Efficiency is pleased to participate
in this hearing on the important connection between water and
energy, and we greatly appreciate the strong leadership of both
of you on this critical issue.
My name is Mary Ann Dickinson, and I am the President and
CEO of the Alliance, which is a nonprofit organization of 365
stakeholder organizations of very diverse affiliations that all
have experience in water conservation programs and policies. We
are dedicated to furthering the efficient and sustainable use
of water in North America, and we are the only national
organization devoted solely to this purpose.
We have been interested in the relationship between water
and energy since we were founded 5 years ago. A project of
which we are particularly proud is a joint effort we undertook
with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
ACEEE, in 2010, to coalesce the views of 75 different
organizations in the United States that are involved in both
water and energy. The resulting work product, A Blueprint for
Action, contains numerous recommendations for national and
State action, in the areas of policy, standards and codes,
programs, and research.
Of particular interest is how much water is needed, or
embedded, in the generation of electricity and how much energy
is embedded in drinking water pumping and treatment, as well as
wastewater treatment.
With a fuller understanding of this significant
relationship nationally, Federal funding programs can be
developed which will cost-effectively and collectively save the
most amount of energy and water and, therefore, greenhouse gas
emissions for the United States. Copies of the Blueprint report
are being provided to you, all the committee members and staff,
and we urge you to consider its recommendations.
We wish in our testimony to make 3 basic points, as
follows: No. 1: Water efficiency has already been very
successful in saving the Nation's resources and in helping to
deter--defer new capacity infrastructure and, thus, should be
further promoted at the Federal level.
Plumbing product and appliance standards, as you have
heard, have reduced indoor water consumption by a range of 43
to 86 percent per fixture or appliance, depending upon the
product. EPA's WaterSense label, launched in 2006, has labeled
over 4,500 products; the sales of which have resulted in 287
billion gallons saved and $4.7 billion saved in consumer water
and energy bills.
By the end of 2011, EPA estimates that there have been
reductions of 34--38.4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity,
along with reductions of 13 million metric tons of greenhouse
gas emissions. That is equivalent to planting about 50 million
trees. EPA's work in this area is a significant achievement in
a short time.
But the Nation's water utilities have been active as well,
reducing consumer demand across the country through cost-
effective investments in end-use conservation programs. With
the country's infrastructure needs now estimated by EPA to be
in neighborhood of $334 billion by 2027, reduced demands due to
water efficiency can help reduce the need for infrastructure
capacity expansion, which is a significant part of the
infrastructure estimate.
In fact, EPA's Community Water System survey in 2006
estimated that in the Nation's 53,000 community systems, over
50 percent of the capital expenditures were for the expansion
of infrastructure, not rehabilitation or replacement. Thus,
water efficiency can be a cost-effective solution in these
expanding systems, where population growth may require new
supplies, storage, or enlarged treatment systems.
Point No. 2: Saving water saves energy, and the benefits
are documentable. As you have also heard from the other
witnesses, California has done seminal research in this area,
beginning in 2005 and with its integrated energy policy report,
which our Blueprint for Action recommends be duplicated
nationwide. This work by the Energy Commission showed that the
amount of embedded energy in water and wastewater was in a wide
range, from anywhere from 2,000 to 20,000 kilowatt hours per
million gallons of water produced.
A national study conducted by River Network in 2009, which
is called the Carbon Footprint of Water, estimated that as much
as 13 percent of the Nation's electric energy load is related
to water and wastewater deliveries, equivalent to approximately
15 percent of the U.S. carbon load.
Further studies completed by the California Public
Utilities Commission clarified, in more detail, the extent of
embedded energy in a variety of different water supply sources.
The detailed copy of our testimony gives a lot of those figures
in a table that is on page 8.
Point No. 3: Water efficiency research, as well as consumer
retrofit programs, should be funded and incentivized on a par
with energy efficiency programs, because they yield
documentable energy savings.
With the Nation's drought now gripping 62 percent of the
counties in the U.S., and with water supplies likely to reach
shortage conditions if it continues, the time is right for the
Federal Government to carefully assess water efficiency as a
beneficial strategy. Although many water-efficient products,
technologies, and programs already exist, more research and
development is needed. To date, funding has been extremely
limited and insufficient, given the chronic need.
With respect to consumer incentives, billions of dollars
have been spent over the past decade on energy efficiency
consumer rebates and tax incentives, but in the area of water
efficiency, these programs have been largely undertaken by the
water system ratepayers, with very little State or Federal
funding.
Thus, we strongly recommend that national incentives be
enacted for water efficiency programs, and further, that a
national policy be instituted to allow energy efficiency
funding to be used for cold water conservation programs, as
well as hot water conservation programs. By cold water
programs, I mean programs that reduce plumbing, volumes, or
irrigation--increase irrigation efficiency.
The reason we are asking for this is because of the clear
embedded energy benefits that this investment would provide
nationally, as well as additional jobs in this area.
So, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dickinson follows:]
Statement of Mary Ann Dickinson, President/CEO, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Chicago, IL
The Alliance for Water Efficiency is pleased to participate in this
hearing on the important connection between water and energy, and we
greatly appreciate the strong leadership of Senator Shaheen and the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on this issue. The
Alliance is a non-profit organization of diverse stakeholders with
experience in water conservation programs and policies, and dedicated
to furthering the efficient and sustainable use of water in North
America. It is the only national organization devoted solely to this
purpose.
We have been interested in the relationship between water and
energy since we were founded five years ago. A project of which we are
particularly proud is a joint effort we undertook with the American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) in 2010, to coalesce
the views of 75 organizations involved in the water-energy arena. The
resulting work product, A Blueprint for Action, contains numerous
recommendations for national and state action in the areas of policy,
standards and codes, programs, and research. Of particular interest is
how much water is needed (or ``embedded'') in the generation of
electricity, and how much energy is ``embedded'' in drinking water
pumping and treatment as well as waste water treatment. With a fuller
understanding of this significant relationship, federal policies and
funding programs can be developed which will cost-effectively and
collectively save the most amount of energy, water and greenhouse gas
emissions for the United States. Hardcopies of the report are being
provided to committee members and staff, and we urge you to consider
its recommendations. Electronic copies of A Blueprint for Action can be
downloaded at the following link: http://
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/blueprint.aspx
We wish to make three basic points in our testimony, as follows:
1. Water efficiency has already been very successful in
saving the nation's resources and in helping to defer new
capacity infrastructure, and should be further promoted at the
federal level.--Plumbing product and appliance standards, in
effect since the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and refined in
subsequent legislation, have reduced indoor water consumption
by a range of 43-86 percent per fixture, depending upon the
product (see Table 1*). EPA's WaterSense label, launched in
2006, has labeled over 4500 products, the sales of which have
resulted in 287 billion gallons saved and $4.7 billion saved in
consumer water and energy bills. By the end of 2011, reductions
of 38.4 billion kWh of electricity were achieved along with
reductions of 13 million metric tons of green house gas
emissions--equivalent to the planting of over 50 million trees.
EPA's work in this area is a significant achievement in a very
short time. But the nation's water utilities have been active
as well, reducing consumer demand across the country through
cost-effective investments in end use conservation programs.
With the country's infrastructure needs now estimated by EPA to
be in the neighborhood of $334.8 billion by 2027, reduced
demands due to water efficiency programs can help reduce the
need for infrastructure capacity expansion, a significant part
3 of the infrastructure estimate. In fact, EPA's Community
Water System Survey in 2006 estimated that in the nation's
53,000 community systems, 52.6 percent of the capital
expenditures were for expansion of infrastructure, not
rehabilitation or replacement. Thus, water efficiency can be a
cost-effective solution in these expanding systems where
population growth may require new supplies, storage or enlarged
treatment systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All tables have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Saving Water Saves Energy--and the benefits are
documentable.--California has been a leader in this area,
having done the seminal research in 2005 which the Blueprint
for Action recommends be duplicated nationwide. This work by
the California Energy Commission showed that the amount of
embedded energy in water and wastewater was in the range of
2,000 kWh to 20,000 kWh per million gallons of water produced
(see Figure 1**). A national study conducted by River Network
in 2009 called The Carbon Footprint of Water estimated that as
much as 13 percent of the nation's electric energy load is
related to water and wastewater deliveries, equivalent to 5
percent of the US carbon load (see Figure 2). Further studies
completed by the California Public Utilities Commission
clarified in more detail the extent of embedded energy in a
variety of different water supply sources (see Table 2). Energy
intensities for drinking water and wastewater treatment
technologies were documented. Now these values, as evidenced by
the pilot projects which measured them, can be productively
used in models to estimate energy savings from future water
efficiency programs which include a wide variety of measures.
The Alliance for Water Efficiency has built just such a model,
called the Water Conservation Tracking Tool, which estimates
not only the energy savings to the utility from both cold and
hot water conservation programs, but also the savings to the
customer and the overall reduction of green house gas emissions
for a suite of chosen water efficiency programs (See Figure 3
for a sample output).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** All figures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Water efficiency research, as well as consumer retrofit
programs, should be incentivized on a par with energy
efficiency programs, because they yield documentable energy
savings.--With drought now gripping 62 percent of the counties
in the US, and with water supplies likely to reach shortage
conditions if it continues, the time is right for the federal
government to carefully assess water efficiency as a beneficial
strategy. Although many water-efficient products, technologies,
and programs already exist, more research and development is
needed. To date, funding has been limited and insufficient
given the chronic need. For example, in the past 10 years only
$3.5 million has been spent by EPA in water efficiency
research, a fraction of what has been spent by the Department
of Energy on energy efficiency research. With respect to
consumer incentives, billions of dollars have been spent over
the past decade on energy efficiency consumer rebates and tax
incentives (see Figure 7). In the area of water efficiency,
these programs have largely been undertaken by the water system
ratepayers, with very little state funding. Virtually no
federal money has been allocated for dedicated water efficiency
programs. Even the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) allocated out of its $780 billion package $30 billion
for energy efficiency programs but only $6 billion for overall
water programs--20 percent of which had to be spent on ``green
infrastructure'' which could include water efficiency. But an
examination of the actual expenditures shows that only 29
percent of the 20 percent was actually spent on water
efficiency; most of the money in the 20 percent set-aside was
spent in energy efficiency, storm water, and environmental
innovation projects (See Table 3). In FY12 Congress
appropriated $811 million for energy efficiency programs in
DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE),
and $50 million for Energy Star. Contrast that with zero
funding for water efficiency programs and $2 million for
WaterSense.
Thus, we strongly recommend that national incentives be enacted for
water efficiency programs, and further that a national policy be
instituted to allow energy efficiency funding to be used for cold water
conservation programs as well as hot water conservation programs
because of the clear embedded energy benefits that this investment
would provide.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Ms. Dickinson, and
thank you all for your testimony.
I am going to start where you ended, and that is the lack
of investment in looking at water use efficiencies. I was
interested in your testimony because you talk--you do the
comparison between how much has been spent on energy
efficiency, and I am particularly interested in this because
Senator Portman and I have a bill that is a fairly
comprehensive approach to energy efficiency, that does not
address water, as you point out.
But I wonder if you could talk about why you think that is;
why has the focus been so much on energy and overlook the water
side?
Ms. Dickinson. There are probably a couple of reasons for
that; one is historical. You know, we are structured to deal
with water at the State level and not at the Federal. It is
largely very fragmented within Federal agencies, whereas we
have one central Department of Energy. So some of us have envy
for a department of water that would have those same
responsibilities and focus.
But I think also, we have been in such separate silos for
so long that we have, until recently, until really the
California work took place in 2005, we didn't really cross over
and look at each other's impacts. Now we are seeing, as we look
at products that the--for example, the Department of Energy is
issuing product standards for.
Let's take ice makers as an example. An energy efficient
ice maker uses water. A water-efficient ice maker uses energy.
We need to find a sweet spot in between. We need to figure out
how we optimize both the water and the energy savings,
particularly because we have now discovered there is so much
embedded energy in that water.
So, what we did in the Blueprint for Action was document
that there are many places in energy efficiency programs and in
energy policy and research programs where just adding the
concept of water will make a lot of policy sense. Directing the
Department of Energy to include water in its deliberations
would be a very significant development. So we would be urging
you to do that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Mr. Chaney, did you want to add
to that?
Mr. Chaney. Just one very small point onto what Mary Ann
provided, and that is, when one looks at the cost of certain
types of energies compared with the cost of water, there is a
dramatic difference. I think that is one of the reasons that
water has not been focused on in a big way because it is,
simply put, very cheap, comparatively speaking.
Senator Shaheen. Especially depending on where you live,
right?
Mr. Chaney. That is right.
Senator Shaheen. So, what are some of the barriers to
deploying the use of water-efficient technologies, the kinds of
codes and standards you talked about, Mr. Green? What are
effective ways to overcome these barriers?
Do you want to go first on responding to that?
Mr. Green. I will try. First of all, I think that
throughout our country, there is a problem today with regard to
the application of codes and standards locally. There is not a
universal application of codes and standards throughout the
United States. There are some places in this country that don't
even have codes in place.
So, water being lowest on the totem pole, if you will, in
terms of safety issues, really hasn't been--hasn't drawn that
much attention. We focus on things like structural safety in
buildings; we focus on things about prevention of natural
disasters in buildings. So, codes and standards get that kind
of press, if you will, but not when it comes to water.
Aas the other panelists have talked about, water is
relatively cheap. When you get your water bill at the end of
the month, you really do not take too much look at it. But when
you get the gas bill, that is a whole different thing. So, we
focused, in terms of energy efficiency, in terms of codes and
standards, to achieve better efficiencies with regard to energy
use for heating and cooling.
Even your comments earlier today about how cool it was in
this building, really are the point. Water, we don't even think
about because it is there. You know, if we look at the kind of
codes and standards that we have in this country, which are
fairly applicable in terms of a lot of the areas, we need to
get better at the production of more efficiencies in our
buildings.
There is a lot of work going on today with respect to pipe-
sizing and how to minimum water loss, but not that great. Then
when we move over to the utility side, there really is no codes
or standards that are applied by local units of government as a
regulatory process; it is only by the utility. They regulate
themselves in terms of water loss in their piping systems. So,
that is where a lot of the inefficiencies are today.
If we had a comprehensive plan, in terms of looking at
point of generation for water to point of distribution and use,
we would have the whole gamut to be covered, but we don't have
that continuity through the process.
Senator Shaheen. You talked about the abundance of water,
and I think Ms. Dickinson and Mr. Chaney alluded to that, too.
But, Mr. Chaney, I was impressed with the map you have in your
testimony that shows the seasonal drought outlook and the
projections for future drought, and the whole center of the
country is projected to have a drought persist or intensify.
So when you look at the map and look at the potential for
water scarcity, it adds a whole new dimension to the importance
of efficiency; wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Chaney. Absolutely, Senator Shaheen. We have very
serious potential problems in our country. In many respects, we
are behind many other developed countries. Australia is the
most accepted model throughout the world with respect to
drought conditions and how they have responded. The United
States, simply put, is a decade or two behind many other
developed countries.
As some of the other panelists have pointed out, you know,
the EPA--some of our Federal agencies have begun to implement
requirements with respect to ensuring that individual plumbing
fixtures are of very high efficiency. But the building
infrastructure and the water supply systems that bring the
water from the utility to the individual buildings are wasting
more--much, much more water than we could ever possibly think
of saving.
So the infrastructure needs to be addressed. Then we need,
frankly, resources to conduct research to understand what the
implications are to public health and safety, because it is a
continuing balancing point between water and energy
conservation and taking that to a limit to ensure that we don't
risk public health and safety.
Senator Shaheen. You talk about educating the public. What
kinds of programs are out there that you all have been party
to, that you think help with that public education piece?
Ms. Dickinson.
Ms. Dickinson. Public education programs are largely
handled at the local level by the water system that is serving
the community, which is unfortunate because we don't have a
national message. It is one of the issues that we are hoping to
work on, on a national basis, at the Alliance for Water
Efficiency because we don't have a national prerogative, a
policy, a consumer education program that is recognized as
being of national interest.
It really is focused on the local water shed and the local
situation. That is partly because people have a very emotional
attachment to their local water supplies and they don't think
of it as a national issue. It is part of, I think, what we need
to change.
Senator Shaheen. If each of you were going to recommend one
thing that we could do to make water efficiency a higher
priority, what would you recommend?
I do not know who wants--Mr. Bena.
Mr. Bena. From the perspective of a water and energy user
in the food and beverage industry, one of the challenges that
we have seen over the years is being able to calculate
favorable return on investment for some of the technology
projects that we've liked to employ. I think any Government
intervention that could help via incentive or other mechanism,
that would help make those ROI calculations more favorable, it
would spur remarkable innovation and new technologies, and
allow us, as the private sector, to incubate really novel
approaches to both water and energy conservation.
Senator Shaheen. So give me some examples of what you think
would be helpful.
Mr. Bena. One of the things that we are--and, again, this
is somewhat nascent, but we are doing this in Gujarat, India,
and it is an example outside the United States. It is done in
partnership with the Columbia University Earth Institute. In
this particular part of India, they see that water levels in
aquifers are dropping up to 3 feet per year, so it is a
really--it is an abysmal situation there.
At the same time, farmers, many of them are small-holder
famers, are digging deeper wells. So when you dig deeper wells,
obviously it requires more electricity to dig, to withdraw the
water. The incentives scheme in Gujarat was essentially non-
existent. There was nothing--there was no policy that was
incentivizing those farmers, either, A, to use less water or,
B, to use less electricity.
So the Columbia Water Center, through funding from the
PepsiCo Foundation, partnered with the government of Gujarat to
actually try, and it is still very new, but it is trying a new
scheme to incentivize those farmers, by giving them relief on
electrical rates to use less water to pump--less water to grow
the crops. So there we are seeing not only a twofold nexus of
water and energy, but actually water, energy, and food, as
well.
Senator Shaheen. So that the less water they use, the lower
their bills are----
Mr. Bena. Correct.
Senator Shaheen. As opposed to what we often have in our
electric system, which is the more energy you use, the less
cost.
Mr. Bena. That is right. Traditionally, it has been
unbridled use. It has been really----
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Mr. Bena. Unbridled water use.
Senator Shaheen. Do the rest of you have recommendations
for one significant change that we can make?
Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Yes. First of all, I think what you are doing
today is really a start of what can be part of a national
dialog on water efficiency and the nexus that we have today.
Last year, the National Institute of Building Sciences
Consultative Council issued a report about the water nexus,
part of that dialog. You have a copy of our annual report,
which we provided to you today, that talks about that and the
continuing work of the Consultative Council.
If we have a continued national dialog about the water
nexus, one of the things that has to be done at this point is,
for us to move forward, is to develop benchmark standards, by
which we can measure use. Then, we can achieve better
efficiencies, because now we would have something to compare
our savings against.
Because there is no national program now, there is no way
that we could say that the savings that we achieve are
universal. They could be greater in one area versus another.
So, that is the kind of discussion that needs to occur.
Senator Shaheen. So the importance of data that you talked
about in your testimony?
Mr. Green. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chaney.
Mr. Chaney. I think, in some respects, Chairwoman Shaheen,
we have got tools already available to us. The Uniform Plumbing
Code, which is the American National Standard for plumbing
system installations, and the Green Plumbing and Mechanical
Code Supplement already provide for these high-energy-type
systems that will help us address these water efficiency and
energy efficiency needs, long term. Usually, that is not the
case.
Usually, you know, we have got to work for many years to
develop the underpinning research that provides us with the
ability to develop the technology. The technology is already
there. We have got standards that address rainwater catchment
systems, gray water recycling systems.
In some respects, they are not widely adopted by States
throughout the country, because some perceive green
technologies as being too expensive. It was the same experience
30 years ago with the solar energy, and the Federal Government
had to provide incentives to kick-start the implementation of
the systems. In many respects, that is what we are experiencing
today.
The Uniform Plumbing Code is the most widely recognized
code in the world. More than 50 percent of the world's
population is covered by the provisions in that document. But
here in the United States, we can't get many States to
understand that the technology is already there, from an energy
and water conservation perspective.
Senator Shaheen. Before I ask Ms. Dickinson to respond, I
want to get Mr. Bena to comment on what you said about the
perception that green technologies are more expensive. Because,
clearly, PepsiCo has adopted those green technologies as a way
to save money on your bottom line.
Mr. Bena. I think in many ways, it still is a perception.
What we have shown through many of the projects that we have
implemented, like membrane bioreactors at our Casa Grande
facility, like remote wind turbines in India that feed a
significant portion of renewable energy to our plants, is that
they are doable and you can make the ROIs work.
But, once again, a very important part of that calculation,
I think, is some relief from governments.
The other thing I would say is----
Senator Shaheen. Can you define that a little bit better.
When you say some relief from governments, what are you talking
about?
Mr. Bena. So, some sort of incentive, either at the State
or national level. Policy frameworks, for example, one of the
things. Many countries where a PepsiCo operates actually don't
have our national water adaptation plans. That is a really
important first step, I would say, in terms of recognizing the
water-energy nexus.
One of the things that we are involved with through the
Water Resources Group 2030, which is now housed in the
International Finance Corporation, is looking at policy models
specifically to help close a 40 percent gap, which has been
estimated between water supply and demand globally over the
next 20 years. So, in some respects----
Senator Shaheen. So--I'm just going to stop you there.
Mr. Bena. Sure.
Senator Shaheen. Say that again, because I want to make
sure----
Mr. Bena. Sure.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. We all got that----
Mr. Bena. Sure.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Discrepancy that you are
talking about.
Mr. Bena. So through an organization called the Water
Resources Group 2030, which is an entity that started in the
World Economic Forum and is now formally housed in the
International Finance Corporation--the sole mission of the
Water Resources Group is to, at the invitation of governments
around the world, help close the estimated 40 percent gap
between water supply and water demand over the next 20 years.
What is really interesting about having a group motivated
by that single goal is that there is a variety of opportunities
within that. It can be agricultural interventions, right, like,
tensiometers, which are some of the things that we are
developing to save water use on farm. It could be things like
the membrane bioreactors in facilities to help reuse water and
make sure that the water reuse doesn't pose any sort of threat
to product quality. You have this barrage of opportunities, all
dedicated to this single goal, which is closing that 40 percent
gap.
If we don't collaborate with governments, with the private
sector, with NGO's, with academia, there is no way we are going
to be able to hit that goal.
Senator Shaheen. Ms. Dickinson.
Ms. Dickinson. This is hard because you have asked for only
one recommendation, and, you know, my head is full of----
Senator Shaheen. You can give three.
Ms. Dickinson [continuing]. Lots of them.
Senator Shaheen. You know, what----
Ms. Dickinson. So, I gave you two in the testimony, so I am
going to give you----
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Ms. Dickinson [continuing]. A different one, because I
think this is the underpinning activity that has to start
first.
The work they did in California shows that we don't have a
good understanding, certainly in the rest of the country, of
the extent of embedded energy in water supplies and treatment
and wastewater treatment. The numbers are highly local, highly
specific. That is the lesson we learned from the California
data.
So we have great numbers in California, but we don't have
great numbers anywhere else in the country. Without having a
good sense of what those national numbers and aggregated data
base would produce, we don't have a good sense for how to
emphasize it in policy or in incentives, or in continued
regulatory work.
So, I think that is the first step and that is probably the
first thing I would ask for.
Senator Shaheen. So you agree with Mr. Green, that we need
to collect the data? Do you have a----
Ms. Dickinson. The data Mr. Green, I believe, was talking
about was at the building level, which I agree from an----
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Ms. Dickinson [continuing]. Perspective is very important.
But I am talking about the water utility and wastewater utility
data. They need to inventory for each of their supply sources
what their energy intensity is, and it is different for every
system. But the collective value of it to the Nation is the
number we really don't know.
EPRI did a study back, I think it was now almost 10 years
ago, and those numbers are outdated. It is time to take a real
look, based on the California methodology, of what our national
numbers really are.
From there, we can build the connections. Energy efficiency
incentives can be then paying for water efficiency programs
that actually yield the energy benefit it is paying for because
you will know exactly what that will do.
So at the Alliance for Water Efficiency, we have actually
built a model that estimates the energy savings from water
efficiency programs, both hot water and cold water, and
estimates the greenhouse gas emission reductions, is largely
based on the California-specific data that was generated, and
it would be much better informed to have a better national
picture if we had it.
Senator Shaheen. Do you have a proposal for who should
keep--start collecting that data? Are--should it be the water
systems, and then, who should they report that to in order to
give us a national picture?
Ms. Dickinson. I understand you have S. 1343, the Energy
and Water Integration Act, and that stipulates the number of
research projects that would be undertaken by a variety of
agencies. That would be a place where that data could be
collected. It needs to be a study. I think requiring the
utilities to report it would just create a 10-year process. I
think we can actually, in the space of a couple of years,
create a good national data base with some confidence.
Senator Shaheen. That would allow us to model----
Ms. Dickinson. Right.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. What we are using.
Thank you.
Ms. Dickinson. Then you can key the actual benefits of the
incentives right to the defined energy savings that you are
achieving.
The reason I mention that is there--in FY12, Congress
appropriated $811 million for energy efficiency programs in
DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We
don't have anything like that in water efficiency, zero.
So, to me, that is a huge contrast, and you could, perhaps,
address that in equity by having a better understanding of the
benefits that water efficiency provides.
Senator Shaheen. One area where Government, I think, is
beginning to recognize the importance of this nexus and address
it is within the military. The Navy has a major program
underway to conserve both energy and water. I am familiar with
it because the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which is on the
border between New Hampshire and Maine--so it is an
installation important to both of us--was the winner in their
category because of the savings that they have made with both
energy and water.
But I was interested because I visited a hospital in New
Hampshire last week, and I was looking at the efficiency
measures that they had taken in the hospital, so very
significant in terms of energy savings.
But they were really struggling with how to do the water
savings piece because of the challenges of the technology that
was available. How to do that, particularly in a situation
where being able to use gray water is probably not as available
as in some manufacturing installations, for example, where that
is a better opportunity than in a hospital setting where they
really have to have clean water in most of their practices.
But, can you all talk about the whole issue of gray water.
Several of you mentioned that one of the requirements we have
in this country is that the water has to be to a drinking water
standard in almost all of the water that we are treating, and,
yet, we don't really need that standard in much of those water
uses. So, how could we begin to address that?
Maybe, Mr. Bena, I'll start with you. Then, Mr. Green, I
know you have some thoughts about that. But, how can we look at
that and encourage companies to look at where they don't need
the drinking water standard and----
Mr. Bena. I think, Senator, we frankly, along with many of
our peer companies and our competitors, have been looking at
that question for years. It was really through the lens of
efficiency and eco-efficiency savings before it had anything to
do with sustainability.
Frankly, we are in a somewhat unique position because we
have a very intimate relationship with our consumers, right.
You eat and drink. You ingest the things that we sell. As a
result of that, it opens us up to something called a
perception, and Lord knows--I mean, the consumers perception of
what, you know, a treated process wastewater stream is may not
always be based in the science that supports that.
So, for years, on the beverage side of the business, we
have not allowed the reuse of water, even if it meets primary
drinking water standards, for use back in--as ingredient water
into our beverages. It is largely based on perception, not on
science.
On the food side of the business, the Casa Grande plant
that I mentioned in Arizona; the Tingalpa, Australia plant;
soon to be a third plant in Chile is actually doing that. So
they are now recycling process wastewater back to a level where
they can use it with direct product contact to wash potatoes.
Again, the perception is very different on the food side of the
business versus beverage.
I will say that one of the barriers to, I think, this
exploding, in terms of seeing potential reuse opportunities, is
the lack of very clear standards with regard to the different
tiers of what is useable for what applications. So, as a result
of that, companies, by and large, are developing them
themselves.
We learned very early on that that kind of a risk
assessment can be so laborious and so costly that, in many
ways, it is easier just to default to primary and secondary
drinking water standards for water reuse, which, frankly, is
what we have been doing.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Green, did you want to add to that?
Mr. Green. I think he is very correct in that, because we
have relied upon primary water--drinking water standards for
use of water as a primary source.
Gray water, we just have not accepted the use of gray water
universally in some applications. For example, gray water,
couldn't be used--and it is being used for reclaimed water in
terms of watering our lawns and so forth. But we really haven't
used it in processing, in building systems. The contaminants
that might be in those waters that we use in, for example,
cooling towers, because we have to treat cooling towers so we
don't develop bacteria. So we use primary water instead of
recycled water in those conditions.
So we need to make sure that if we are going to use this
recycled water, that they do meet the standard that we are
using. So we are going to have various tiers of conditioning
that we have to have. I think that gets back to the science of
it, from the standpoint of how are we going to use the water,
where is it generated from, and how can a building reprocess,
internally, to use water.
Those are the things that I think, when I talked about the
dialog about how we use this water, I think that has all got to
be contained in that discussion.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Did either of you want to comment on that?
Mr. Chaney. If I can add to it, Senator. The--you know, the
water quality standards for recycled or reclaimed water are
available. The design, installation, and maintenance standards
for how to install the systems within buildings, they are
available in the Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement.
I think one of the impediments has been the infrastructure
costs that go along with redesigning the system, because, with
the gray water recycling system, you now have dual piping that
has to be introduced and there is an associated cost.
You know, in a home, you know, you may only be talking
about $3,000 or $4,000. In a PepsiCo plant, you are talking
literally, potentially millions of dollars. So there is a huge
infrastructure cost that gets tied together. The standards are
already there. That is what I was speaking to earlier.
So, in that respect, we have the tools from a design and
installation perspective to install and maintain these systems.
It is a matter now of understanding what the financial
implications are.
Senator Shaheen. Anything to add, Ms. Dickinson?
Ms. Dickinson. The gray water topic is an interesting one
because gray water is largely permitted at the local health
department level. Local public health officers have been
permitting these systems only as pilots because there is no
national epidemiological standard that they feel comfortable
with, and that is an issue we need to address.
But, again, because of the lack of funding for this issue,
there has been a group of stakeholders, and Russ's organization
is part of it--there's 6 organizations that have come together
to form a plumbing efficiency research coalition, and they are
self-funding a number of studies on plumbing and efficiency
issues to make sure that we proceed with as best an
understanding as possible. For example, are we getting
blockages in drain lines.
Gray water is on the list for study. But this coalition has
access to zero Federal resources. We are self-funding these
studies because we can't get access to, you know, Federal
institutions to take a look at this issue.
So gray water probably needs the active participation of a
number of Federal agencies, like the Center for Disease
Control. You know, people who need to weigh in an help make
sure that as we roll out the standards that Russ is talking
about, that the local public health officers develop a level of
comfort with it. Because, right now, they don't have it.
Senator Shaheen. Given those challenges, is--are the
savings, they are significant enough to make it worthwhile? I
mean, is this an area that we should be pursuing or should we--
--
Ms. Dickinson. It depends.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Be pursuing the----
Ms. Dickinson. For indoor fixtures, because we are
ratcheting down so much of the actual volume, the flow volume
of all those fixtures, we're generating less and less potential
for gray water. But, you know, I think in the commercial and
industrial installations, it's a different--if it's--it's a
different matter. So I, you know, leave it to the others to
address that point.
But we are seeing such enormous reductions in indoor water
use domestically that the feasibility, economically, of
retrofitting a house with a gray water system, you know, it's
not cost effective; that feasibility isn't there.
Now new construction will be different, especially if you
can use a lot of that gray water outdoors. But, again,
standards don't uniformly exist for gray water application and
irrigation. So these are all issues we need to address.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chaney.
Mr. Chaney. Thank you, Chairwoman.
I just wanted to make one, I think, important point with
respect to your question. That is, when we look at water
conservation and whether or not the infrastructure cost
justifies the expenditure, we not only--unlike with energy, in
water, you look at not only the water savings, but the energy
savings that go along with it.
So there is a dual benefit in respect to water savings. You
always got to remember that that nexus exists, unlike in the
reverse. That's an important distinction that we have to keep
in mind when we consider these infrastructure costs.
Senator Shaheen. So as we're thinking about policies--
national policies to help deal with water efficiency, the--a
better approach might be to continue to encourage reduction in
water use, as opposed to looking at how we can encourage more
use of non-potable water. Is that what it sounds like you are
all saying?
Mr. Bena.
Mr. Bena. I think, frankly, it's a little bit of both, and
I think that that answer of both is going to become even more
true as time goes on. When you think about population growth
and population shift and the drought that you mentioned, and
one of my co-panelists, the drought projections, I think we're
going to have to use any and all tools at our disposal to be
able to address the magnitude of the crises.
Furthermore, and again, the unique perspective of a
consumer products company like PepsiCo--I can't believe I'm
about to say this, but it doesn't always come down to financial
cost. In fact, we have plants operating that do not have
attractive returns on investment because of preserving our
social license to operate in those geographies, which, frankly,
can be absolutely crippling to a business. Unfortunately,
there's no easy ways, as of yet, to kind of quantitate that
social license.
Senator Shaheen. So, how can we support leadership in the
private sector to address these issues? Obviously, PepsiCo has
done an excellent job of looking at the challenges you face and
why it is in your company's interest, both from a cost
perspective, but also, as you point out, because of the social
capital that you get as the result of doing the right thing in
different places. How can you promote that kind of ethic and--
among the private sector?
Mr. Bena. I think, Madame Chair, there have been--I have
been at PepsiCo for 28 years. In the last, I would say, 5
years, I have seen an unprecedented and positive increase in
collaboration.
It sometimes sounds pat, but it is so powerful when you can
actually get the local government, or the National or the
international government to collaborate legitimately with the
private sector, and you bring NGO's to the party, and you bring
academia to the party, the result is--you know, people use the
word synergy, right; one plus one equals three. A lot of times
that's overused. But with those kinds of collaborations, I
think it's absolutely true.
You know, we've witnessed it. We continue to witness it.
WRG was one example; United Nations CEO Water Mandate is
another. I mean, it's essentially under the IGES of the U.N.
Secretary General. But it is a private sector-led consortium.
It has opened up such collaborative opportunities with the
private sector, with governments, with NGO's. It is--I think
anything that we can do to kind of spur that air of collective
action would certainly benefit all involved.
Senator Shaheen. So, you mentioned the legislation, Ms.
Dickinson. But how can the Federal Government be a partner in
these kinds of initiatives?
Ms. Dickinson. You have a Department of Energy that could
be directed to take a look at the water side, the water impacts
from its energy regulatory activities, and I think that would
be an important step. You know, making sure we have good
information would be another important step.
But I am hearing, you know, from other panelists, too, the
issue of incentive. You know, the incentive is important
because, as we know, water is not priced the same way as energy
and is largely considered almost a free resource in some parts
of the country. So since we price the water based on the cost
of delivery and not on its resource value itself, it--you don't
often get that return on investment.
So, the ability to provide an additional Federal incentive
would be very significant, and I think there is a national
benefit even beyond the resource issues there. Jobs are created
by these efficiency programs. You know, we did an analysis that
showed that if we invested $10 billion in the U.S. in water
efficiency programs, we could create up to 220,000 new jobs in
the implementation of these programs.
So these are all issues that I think we need to think about
rolling in. I know this is not the economy to be talking about
additional Federal funding for anything. But, to date, water
efficiency has gotten zero in terms of Federal incentives, and
it--I think it is time to readdress that.
Senator Shaheen. Included in that $10 billion figure, did
you include any of the upgrades that need to be made to our
current water and wastewater treatment systems, which obviously
are, in many places, very out-of-date and in need of
replacement?
Ms. Dickinson. The $10 billion figure that I just mentioned
was a study that we did that was solely dedicated to water
efficiency, which is mostly end use programs, but also leak
detection and repair that Russ mentioned in his comments. It
was addressing the infrastructure leakage, not replacement of
new infrastructure. That was not part of our analysis. But
repair of leaks and rehabilitation of those leaks was part of
that analysis.
Mr. Green. Chairwoman Shaheen, at the risk of really
getting the ire of my board of directors, I'd like to offer
something to you in this discussion.
The National Institute of Building Sciences was, in fact,
impaneled to be this link between private sector and public
agencies to talk about issues such as this.
What I would propose is that there would be a program that
would be developed to identify a national water plan that would
bring both private and public sector organizations to the
table, much like PepsiCo, IAPMO, other code organizations, and
other resources, such that a report could be generated that
could be delivered to you that might show all of the varying
issues relative to the water nexus.
I know that's a daunting challenge, but that's something
that I think that the Institute was, in fact, impaneled to do.
As I said, I will talk to my board of directors about doing
that kind of work.
This would not be a Government or a private sector program,
but a collaboration between the two that would have both of the
parties. Because if we start this discussion, the folks in the
private sector are going to come to the table and we can bring
some of the Federal agencies there that have various concerns:
water quality, medical issues. We could invite all of them to
the same kind of discussions so that it all could be compiled
in a report.
I would hope I would get the support of the other panel
members to look at something like that.
Senator Shaheen. I was just going to ask them if they
support that idea.
Good. Are there any final comments that any of you would
like to make before we close the hearing?
Ms. Dickinson. I want to thank you very much for hosting a
hearing on this topic. This is something that is very important
to us as an organization, and we are very, very thrilled to see
your attention to this issue.
Mr. Chaney. Chairwoman Shaheen, I couldn't agree more. It's
through these types of hearings that this important information
gets into public policy debates.
As my co-panelists have indicated, this is something that
really needs a lot of attention, given the major drought
conditions that we're likely to experience as a country.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Bena.
Mr. Bena. I think, Madame Chair, by addressing this
genuinely as a nexus of water and energy, and potentially even
adding the third component of food, it is a real opportunity
for U.S. leadership to once again be shown.
Thank you very much for hosting.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Green, final point?
Mr. Green. I would just like to say thank you very much for
this opportunity. I think it is shown that there is, in fact, a
great concern. That we at least share that concern, and we
share it with you. we're hopeful, very hopeful, that as a
result of our discussions, going forward, that we can make a
difference.
Thank you, again.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, all, very much for your
testimony. I think you have given us a lot to think about and
some real concrete recommendations for what might be helpful
from the public sector, going forward.
I think if we remember nothing from the hearing, those of
us who have listened, certainly the 40 percent difference
between supply and demand ought to get everybody's attention.
So thank you, all, very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
National Institutes of Building Sciences,
Washington, DC, August 15, 2012.
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
Chairwoman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Energy and Natural Resources
Committee.
Hon. Mike Lee,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee.
Dear Chairwoman Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Water and Power
Subcommittee about water efficiency and its connection with energy. I
commend your leadership and see this hearing as an opportunity to start
an ongoing national dialogue to address how we efficiently utilize this
limited resource.
As I indicated at the close of the hearing, the Institute would be
honored to spearhead the conversation on establishing a National Water
Plan and hope you will support such an effort.
I am pleased to provide the following responses to your follow-up
questions.
Question 1. What are the economic and job-related benefits of
addressing aging water infrastructure and building plumbing systems?
Answer. Numerous organizations, from the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, have identified the
state of our water-related infrastructure as a significant issue facing
the nation. ASCE, in a 2009 report, gave the U.S. drinking water and
wastewater system a D- grade. Investing in improvements to both the
water distribution system and sewer system would result in economic and
job-related benefits. The Congressional Budget Office found in 2002
that repairing and updating water distribution systems would require
$335 billion over the next 20 years and an additional $300 billion to
do the same for sewer systems.
In addition to the jobs necessary (including everything from
manufacturing and engineering to construction) to complete such repairs
and updates, further benefits would accrue. The United States
Conference of Mayors estimates that every job created through
rebuilding water systems creates more than 3.6 jobs elsewhere and every
dollar invested in water infrastructure adds $6.35 to the national
economy.
Nearly 2 trillion gallons of water are lost annually through leaks
in water pipes. This annual loss equates to an estimated $1 to $2
billion. These costs are incorporated into a water utility's rate
structure and are ultimately born by their ratepayers. Eliminating such
wasteful expenditures would result in additional funds being available
for ratepayers to invest elsewhere in the economy.
Incentives to conduct water audits for building plumbing systems
can have the tri-fold benefit of creating jobs, reducing water use and
saving building owners money. Such audits identify opportunities for
the retrofit of existing fixtures and appliances (many of which are
made in the United States).
Question 2. Please describe the work that you have done with
Federal agencies to highlight the impact that water efficiency has on
energy efficiency. What role has the Department of Energy played in
incorporating this data into their energy efficiency modeling for
buildings?
Answer. Though the Institute works with federal agencies
extensively, it has had a very limited engagement on projects that
address the connection between water efficiency and energy efficiency.
The majority of our work with federal agencies has been focused on
resolving specific needs already identified by the agency. However, the
following activities provide examples of our work in this area:
Whole Building Design Guide: The Whole Building Design Guide
(www.wbdg.org) is the world's largest repository of buildings-
related information. Eleven agencies support the guide and
reference its content for their building programs. The private
sector also makes significant use of this resource. Pages on
``Water Conservation'' and ``Protect and Conserve Water''
identify the necessity to include energy issues when examining
water issues.
Mechanical Insulation Design Guide: The Mechanical
Insulation Design Guide (www.wbdg.org/design/midg.php) serves
as a comprehensive source of information on the benefits of
mechanical insulation, criteria for selection, design and
installation of mechanical insulation systems and case studies.
Currently, the guide focuses primarily on the energy
efficiency-related benefits of mechanical insulation, but as
mentioned in my testimony, there are potential water
efficiency-related benefits as well. Future versions of the
guide will explore these issues in greater depth.
Department of Energy (DOE) National Training and Education
Resource (NTER) Weatherization Training Program: The Institute
led development of a module for NTER that focused on training
weatherization personnel in a virtual environment. While the
module is primarily focused on improving energy efficiency, it
does address some water-related activities, including
insulating pipes and water heaters. Future NTER modules could
be developed with a greater focus on tying water and energy
efficiency together.
While the Institute is not privy to all considerations that go into
DOE decision making and model development, the role of water efficiency
in such activities appears limited. Generally, the codes and standards
that address energy use for both commercial and residential buildings
do not include a focus on water efficiency or the resultant energy
savings. There are several specific areas in the context of codes and
standards where a future focus on water efficiency is possible,
including the use of mechanical insulation, the efficiency of water
pumping and heating equipment, and the use of water for cooling of HVAC
equipment. Putting a greater focus on the connection between water and
energy at DOE and within other agencies (Environmental Protection
Agency, Housing and Urban Development and National Institute of
Standards and Technology) could provide a more holistic and
comprehensive approach to the efficient use of limited resources. We
would be pleased to work with this Subcommittee and the relevant
agencies to embed water efficiency considerations in all energy-related
discussions and vice-versa.
Question 3. Please describe the different job opportunities that
could be related to a concerted focus on water efficiency within the
building sector. In addition, where is most of the equipment made that
is used to reduce water use, or improve overall water efficiency within
the residential, commercial and industrial sectors?
Answer. There would be a variety of associated job opportunities
created if a concerted effort was made to improve water efficiency
within the building sector. Such efforts should start with identifying
how water is currently used and opportunities to use water more
efficiently. Water audits and commissioning efforts would require a
cadre of skilled contractors. Once water saving opportunities were
identified, they could be implemented by various different workers
within the construction trades, including plumbers and landscapers.
Both new buildings and complex retrofits aiming for improved water
efficiency would be more likely to employ engineers and/or landscape
architects. In addition, if a National Water Plan was advanced as a
national priority with a concerted widespread focus, manufacturers
would be more likely to invest in research and development to meet
these priorities-thus increasing demand for various types of scientists
and engineers.
On-site treatment of wastewater or use of graywater systems also
could become more widespread, with an expanded focus on water
efficiency. Employment of such systems would require plumbing
engineers, plumbers, microbiologists, sampling and laboratory
technicians, operations and maintenance providers, and others.
While there is limited definitive information available on how many
plumbing products are made domestically, Plumbing Manufacturers
International (which represents companies responsible for 80 percent of
the plumbing products distributed and/or produced in the United States
) reports that its membership has manufacturing facilities in 20
states. In addition to product manufacturing, the distribution and
retail sales of products impact state and local economies across the
country. While not an exhaustive list, prominent companies such as
Kohler, Moen, American Standard and Delta manufacture most if not all
of their plumbing products in the United States. These companies and
other U.S.-based manufacturers produce the majority of plumbing
products used in the United States.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee. As I indicated at the end of the hearing, the Institute
would be pleased to begin the discussion on establishment of a National
Water Policy that could begin to address many of the issues raised by
me and other witnesses. We will be reaching out to your offices in the
near future to assure that you are aware of the progress of this effort
and to get your input as it develops.
Please consider the Institute as a resource as you address
additional buildings-related issues.
Respectfully submitted,
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA,
President.
______
Responses of Daniel W. Bena to Questions From Senator Shaheen
Question 1. You highlight the real environmental benefits that
PepsiCo's sustainable initiatives can deliver, but could you elaborate
on what these initiatives mean to PepsiCo from a business perspective?
What are the reasons PepsiCo invests in these types of initiatives?
Answer. First, and foremost, sustainability initiatives help grow
our business and strengthen our social license to operate. They allow
us the opportunity to help ensure PepsiCo will continue to flourish 10,
20, or 100 years from now.
Many companies mistakenly identify sustainability initiatives as
something that sit apart from the business, when, in fact, these
efforts must be considered as a part of the business, in every sense.
This is the core principle in our operating model at PepsiCo called
Performance with Purpose. We are guided by Performance with Purpose,
because doing what's right for people and our planet leads to a more
successful future for PepsiCo. It's our commitment to sustained growth
with a focus on Performance, Human, Environmental and Talent
Sustainability.
PepsiCo has a diverse set of stakeholders that demand we
aggressively pursue environmentally sustainable initiatives. These
audiences range from the socially responsible investment consortia,
like Ceres, collectively representing trillions of dollars in assets
under management; to members of local, national, and international
governments, who are interested in innovative partnerships with the
private sector; to non-governmental organizations, like non-profits and
academics, who understand the value that the private sector can bring
to global crises, such as water and climate insecurity but who at the
same time hold businesses accountable. In addition, our PepsiCo
shareholders expect healthy financial returns on their investment in
our stock, and the productivity gains afforded by successful
environmental sustainability programs are an important part of this
performance. Also, our customers are increasing their expectations of
the environmental stewardship of their supply chain partners, of which
PepsiCo is a part. Finally, our consumers across the world are
consistently redefining and raising their expectations of environmental
stewardship and the private sector's responsibility within this sphere.
Within PepsiCo's Global Operations, we have created an internal
approach called the ``Five S Framework,'' which summarizes the business
reasons for aggressively pursuing an environmental sustainability
agenda. Specifically:
(1) Synchronize the needs of business and society
(2) Secure our supply chain and make it more resilient
(3) Sustain the right to operate and grow from our
stakeholders
(4) Satisfy consumer demand
(5) Synthesize new productivity opportunities
Question 2. How does the implementation of water conservation
programs affect PepsiCo's bottom line? How much has the company saved
by using water efficient technologies and practices?
Answer. If we look at resource reduction more generally, over the
last five years, our reduction of energy, water, and packaging
materials has resulted in over $415 Million in productivity savings.
Approximately $200 million of this is due to water and energy
conservation, and approximately $215 million due to package
lightweighting that removed approximately 336 million pounds of
material, with commensurate savings in water and fossil fuel.
In 2011 alone, PepsiCo saved an estimated $50 million as a direct
result of water and energy conservation practices.
Our year-end 2011 performance of a 21 percent increase in water use
efficiency vs. a 2006 baseline not only surpasses our 2015 goal four
years early, but represents water conservation of 16 billion liters,
enough to provide the entire planet with their daily drinking water
allotment, or fill 16 Empire State Buildings. These kinds of savings
are critical to secure our right to operate, particularly in water-
stressed areas.
On the agricultural side of our business, our water conservation
practices not only conserve significant volumes of water, but also help
in improving yield-providing ``more crop per drop.''
We should note that water conservation initiatives like those
contained in S. 3552, the Expanding Industrial Energy and Water
Efficiency Incentives Act of 2012, that extend tax credits to
manufacturers who invest in water conservation and reuse are critical.
It is these types of incentives that encourage businesses to develop
and implement water conservation strategies.
Question 3. Both your written and oral testimony reference ReCon.
Would you elaborate in greater detail how this system works and how
PepsiCo works with suppliers?
Answer. At PepsiCo, ReCon is the name given to our four-stage
program of global best practice tools for resource conservation, and is
based on the old adage, ``if you treasure it, you'll measure it.''
Stage One focuses on granular measurement of resource use with our
manufacturing facilities. For example, on the energy side, we estimate
how much energy each individual motor, boiler, or heat exchanger uses
and identify areas of opportunities and develop action plans to improve
performance. By sharing information through our Operations network, we
can strive to apply best practices globally. Stage Two focuses on the
major users of resources within the plant, based on the data obtained
from Stage One. We know that compressed air and process heating
represent significant use of energy within our plants. The systems we
use to treat and purify water are often themselves major consumers of
water. Stage Three then focuses outside of our direct operations and
extends to our supply chain. Stage Four encompasses our entire PepsiCo
enterprise.
We constructed the first tool several years ago for energy
management within our plants, based heavily on tools and information
from the US Department of Energy. ReCon Energy was followed by ReCon
GHG, ReCon Water, and most recently ReCon Solid Waste. The power of
these tools comes from leveraging a common approach globally. Each has
a Profiler, a tool which quantifies a plant's resource usage streams
and substreams, and calculates the relative values/costs of those
streams. In the case of water, for example, our ReCon Water Profiler
allows the plant to dissect its water use and then provides a mapping
of the relative volumes of each stream, along with the relative values
of each stream. The values are assigned based on local cost of incoming
water, treatment or conditioning chemicals, energy used to heat or
cool, and finally costs associated with discharge.
Comparing these data allows a quantitative assessment of which
streams offer the greatest opportunity for saving water by avoiding
water use altogether, reducing the volume of water used, or reusing
spent water. The Diagnostic, a series of customized audit-type
questions, then assesses whether the plant is following best practices,
and which opportunities exist for improvement.
In addition, since 2008, PepsiCo has executed a strategic
engagement program with suppliers in North America. By the end of 2011,
the program included 50 suppliers representing over 120 facilities.
These suppliers leveraged the ReCon program to deliver a single-year
2.5 percent improvement in thermal energy efficiency, 7 percent
improvement in electrical energy efficiency and an 18.7 percent
reduction in waste-to-landfill. This corresponds to an estimated
productivity improvement of nearly $2 million in 2011. Moreover, from
2007-2010, during the inaugural launch of our supplier outreach
program, suppliers demonstrated an average 22 percent improvement in
water use efficiency, on average.
Based on the success of the program in North America, we expanded
the strategic engagement initiative to suppliers in South America and
Europe in 2011. We anticipate similar results and would be happy to
share them with the committee once they are available.
Question 4. I'm interested to learn more about PepsiCo's
sustainable agriculture program and the irrigation strategies employed
to conserve water. How are these strategies assisting in water scarce
areas and how effective would they be in drought ridden areas of the
United States?
Answer. PepsiCo's vision for sustainable agriculture is about
increasing productivity and reducing risk for the benefit of our
farmers and supply chain. Solutions to agricultural efficiency and
productivity issues resulting from our environment demand that we ask
and answer tough questions such as the impact of climate change.
We know we can effect change with our growers, because we have
direct touch-points with them. For example, in 2010, we began the
Sustainable Farming Initiative, a program that defines standardized
metrics for sustainable agriculture and can be applied to any country,
any crop, any size land base and for any farmer, large or small. It
consists of establishing best practices within three pillars:
environmental, social and economic. We started identifying
sustainability indicators within the environmental pillar in 2011.
Since then, nine indicators have been identified, including: soil,
water, air, energy, agrochemicals, nutrients, GHGs, waste and
biodiversity. Detailed criteria and best practices are being developed
to address each one of the nine indicators. We are in the process of
developing the social and economic pillars, which include identifying
indicators covering health and safety, employment practices and working
conditions, among others. We expect to launch the complete program
globally in 2013 and are striving for our growers and agricultural
suppliers to be compliant with the program by 2020.
Even more basic, and a core part of our Sustainable Agriculture
Policy, the Sustainable Farming Initiative, and our day-to-day
agricultural practices in the field with our growers, is resource
conservation.
We continue to invest in a portfolio of water-conserving
technologies and techniques here in the United States and around the
world, both through our business and through our philanthropic arm, the
PepsiCo Foundation. For example, in addition to evolving our irrigation
practices from traditional flood irrigation, to central pivot, and
ultimately to drip, we developed ``i-crop'' technology in partnership
with the University of Cambridge in the UK. I-crop uses a variety of
climatic sensors, GPS mapping, and root-zone water measurements,
coupled with ``cool farm software,'' to deliver precisely the amount of
water needed to the root zone, precisely when it is needed.
The PepsiCo Foundation, in partnership with the Columbia University
Earth Institute in New York City, developed a low-cost device called a
tensiometer, which is a soil moisture probe currently being tested by
thousands of farmers in India, and which is showing water savings in
excess of 20 percent over traditional methods.
In China, PepsiCo is one of the largest agriculture-related
enterprises, investing more than RMB 200 million (equivalent to more
than USD 31 million) in local agricultural development. These
investments, supported by PepsiCo's proven expertise in crop plantation
and irrigation, have benefited more than 10,000 rural Chinese
households and created a win-win solution for local farmers and the
company. Examples include:
A PepsiCo pilot farm in Inner Mongolia has used advanced
irrigation technologies to transform desert into fertile potato
farmland.
The average yield of PepsiCo's potato farms in China has
increased to 45 tons per hectare, meeting the global standard.
PepsiCo has achieved up to 50 percent reduction in water
consumption in potato cultivation by implementing advanced
irrigation techniques.
The use of drip irrigation techniques in the cultivation of
potatoes in India has the potential to reduce on farm water usage by as
much as 50 percent. In addition to the considerable water savings, drip
irrigation helps to increase yields without additional labor
requirements, which results in overall cost savings. From 2008 to 2011,
PepsiCo developed and expanded the drip irrigation technique to include
2,787 acres in four states (Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and
Karnataka), with plans to reach 4,000 acres in 2012. Farmers are
provided with low-cost loans to cover costs, and PepsiCo has
commitments to buy back potatoes as part of its supply chain.
We continue to leverage these approaches here in the United States
across our supply chain. Over a ten-year period, our Frito-Lay business
in the US reduced on-farm water usage by 715 Million gallons/year,
reduced on-farm fuel usage by 250 thousand gallons/year, and reduced
on-farm fertilizer use by 3.3 Million pounds/year.
Question 5. With different PepsiCo facilities across the country,
how do the various water utility practices influence your efforts to
conserve water? What have been the most effective programs?
Answer. As local businesses, we know the unique aspects of our
communities, particularly as it relates to local water resources. In
the United States, close to 100 percent of our facilities support
local/municipal infrastructure systems as an industrial supply
customer. In virtually every case, our plant production teams establish
relationships with the municipality early in the process, so that we
can be alerted of any issue that may impact supply. Similarly, we alert
them of any unusual conditions which might impact their operations on
the raw water side, or with regard to wastewater treatment.
This collaborative relationship between utilities and water users,
like PepsiCo, should be considered among the most effective best
practices.
The current drought experienced throughout the United States
provides an excellent example. Like any customer, drought impacts us,
and we generally cease any non-critical water use consistent with
drought management. In addition, we work with other companies in the
beverage sector, through the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable
(BIER), to develop drought preparedness guidelines for our sector. It
is during these times that a solid relationship and frequent dialog
between utilities and its users is advantageous.
It is worth noting that one of the trends that we have witnessed,
particularly with smaller utilities, is that when our manufacturing
facilities reduce water usage in any given year, it is not uncommon for
the water rates to increase the next year commensurate with the water
reductions we have effected. This is understandable from the
perspective of sustaining the utility operations budget, but, at the
same time, can be counter-incentivizing to further incremental resource
reduction by the user.
Alternatively, higher water prices could actually help justify
acceptable returns on investments (ROI) for water conserving
technology, like various forms of membrane treatment. So, accurate
valuation of water across the board and across all industries needs
further assessment.
Further exploration into solutions to these scenarios would be of
benefit to both the utilities and the end users in the long term.
Response of Daniel W. Bena to Question From Senator Lee
Question 1. Please describe the areas that should be further
researched to better understand interconnectedness between water and
energy.
Answer. The hearing explicitly made the case that it takes energy
to treat and move water, and it takes water to produce energy. Yet, too
often, water use efficiency and energy efficiency are addressed
separately. Admittedly, significant and positive impact can be achieved
by pursuing efficiency improvements in water or energy individually.
However, there is a growing trend in the environmental arena to better
understand the true synergy of addressing water and energy use
together-the so-called ``water:energy nexus.''
We suggest that a third leg should be added to this discussion-food
security. If interested parties can begin to address the water: energy:
food nexus holistically, using a ``systems approach,'' we believe that
significant impacts can be realized.
For example, in certain regions of the United States, water tables
are declining. A farmer's response-or that of the utility that provides
water to the farmer-is understandably to dig a deeper well. At just
over eight pounds per gallon, the deeper the well, the more energy it
takes to abstract that water used to grow the crop. At some point,
additional pumps and pipelines will be needed to keep agricultural
fields and cities hydrated almost certainly increasing costs to both
water and energy use and thus increasing the cost of the food grown.
Similarly, just as more energy is needed to abstract water, more water
is often used to produce that energy. This in turn makes less water
available for cultivation and places an even greater burden on our
farms.
More research is needed to better understand the innovative methods
needed to encourage mutually beneficial conservation efforts, i.e.,
growing a food crop, using less water, and conserving energy (or
increasing the use of renewables). Too often, attention is directed
toward rewarding a single aspect of the nexus, such as energy
efficiency, despite the fact that water conservation plays an equally
important role.
______
Alliance for Water Efficiency,
Chicago, IL, August 15, 2012.
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mike Lee,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee:
The Alliance for Water Efficiency is a broad-based stakeholder non-
profit organization composed of 365 water supply utilities, business
and industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and government
agencies committed to promoting the efficient and sustainable use of
water throughout North America. We believe that conserving water and
using it efficiently is critical to ensuring that water resources are
available now and in the future to support healthy economies,
ecosystems, communities, and individuals.
The Alliance was pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Water
and Power on July 25, 2012 to testify on our work on water and energy
nexus issues. We have received follow-up questions from you, and we are
pleased to provide answers as indicated below.
If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Mary Ann Dickinson,
President and CEO.
Responses of Mary Ann Dickinson to Question From Senator Shaheen
Question 1. You mention the relationship between energy and water
and the amount of energy embedded in water and wastewater treatment.
Why is there such a wide range in the amount of embedded energy and
what causes the disparity?
Answer. The amount of energy consumed by drinking water pumping and
treatment, as well as wastewater pumping and treatment, varies
significantly from water system to water system. The amount of energy
needed varies because of physical constraints such as topography;
technical constraints such as type of pumps and type of treatment
processes; and the length of distances over which water needs to be
pumped. It further varies by type of water supply source: surface water
withdrawal; imported or transferred water; pumped groundwater; recycled
water; or desalinated water. Each supply source will have a
``signature'' of how much energy is used between system input and
eventual discharge, and it is essential to know the total energy
signature in order to understand which supply sources use the most
energy.
Beginning in 2005, the California Energy Commission conducted
detailed work that showed the range of embedded energy in water and
wastewater in California is between 2,000 kWh to 20,000 kWh per million
gallons (MG) of water produced. The figure* below shows where energy is
used in each phase of the pumping and treatment cycle. The most energy-
intensive range is in water treatment, sometimes going up to 16,000
kWh/MG. The type of treatment is also a factor, with microfiltration
being typically the most energy intensive treatment process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conveyance of water over long distances is similarly a high energy
user, and thus the supply source is important too, with its own
embedded energy signature. In my home community of Lake Arrowhead,
California, the amount of energy needed for three different water
supply sources varies greatly. When water is withdrawn and consumed
from Lake Arrowhead itself, the embedded energy value of the pumping
and treatment, including wastewater collection and treatment, is around
8,984 kWh/MG, based on an examination of the electric bills. When the
water comes from groundwater wells, the embedded energy number is not
too dissimilar: 8,873 kWh/MG. But when the Lake Arrowhead Community
Services District has to buy additional water from California's State
Water Project, the embedded energy number skyrockets to 24,991 kWh/MG.
Clearly the imported water--which has to be pumped great distances over
high elevations--is a very serious energy consumer as well as extremely
expensive water.
Thus, it is critical that each water system compute its embedded
energy numbers for all its pumping and treatment types, as well as for
each one of its water supply sources, to see if there is high
variation. Once this information is known, efficiency programs can be
designed to optimize utility operations and to minimize the amount of
energy needed for the highest energy-using supply source. Table 2 in my
testimony gives a summary of all the various energy inputs that came
out of the California research. This information is what needs to be
aggregated and computed for each water system.
The high variability in embedded energy in drinking water and
wastewater systems is a significant national issue because very little
data exists on the regional variations across the country. It is
imperative that we gather better information on the amount of energy
being consumed by water and wastewater utilities, as well as their
customers, so that appropriate efficiency programs are designed and
implemented.
Question 2. I am interested in the work of the 75 organizations
involved in the water-energy arena to identify recommendations for
national and state officials in the areas of policy and research. What
are some of the recommendations from the Blueprint for Action that
might be relevant for this committee?
Answer. The Blueprint for Action\1\ included policy as well as
programmatic recommendations for moving the water-energy nexus issue
forward. There were nine specific policy recommendations that we
believe would be relevant for this committee's consideration and that
we are hoping will be the subject of future legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Addressing the Water-Energy Nexus: A Blueprint for Action and
Policy Agenda, May, 2011. Alliance for Water Efficiency and the
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. http://
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/blueprint.aspx
1. Encourage the implementation of regulatory structures and
incentives that reward water and energy efficiency, including
by establishing mechanisms to recognize the benefits of water
and energy savings by programs, and consider setting water-
saving targets for utilities, just as many states have energy-
saving targets for utilities.
2. Encourage the Department of Energy to implement appliance
and equipment standards on water-using appliances and
equipment, and provide appropriate credit for direct and
indirect water impacts in setting performance standards.
3. Develop, enact, and implement building codes that
recognize water and energy efficiency.
4. Develop and propose specific energy-water elements to add
to existing federal legislation, such as the Water Resources
Development Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, and the National Energy Conservation Policy Act.
5. Develop and propose tax incentives for water and energy
efficiency, preferably performance-based.
6. Direct and provide resources to such federal bodies as the
Energy Information Administration, national laboratories, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Census Bureau, the
Department of Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency
to collect water and energy end-use data from across sectors
and to extend existing and future energy policy analyses to
include water impacts where possible.
7. Identify a platform enabling energy and water regulatory
and governance bodies to communicate with each other readily.
8. Encourage increased collaboration among federal, state,
and local agencies in such areas as the integrating of water
and energy efficiency through the use of grant funding,
research, regulation, and technical assistance from the
Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
9. Require coordination between energy and water regulatory
authorities when considering siting of new power plants or
significantly expanding existing power plants.
Responses of Mary Ann Dickinson to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Please describe the energy and water savings directly
tied to repairing aging water infrastructure.
Answer. With water supply having so much embedded energy in it
because of pumping and treatment, a utility that leaks a large amount
of treated water out of its distribution system is not only losing
money but losing valuable energy. This issue was studied by the
California Public Utilities Commission in 2007-2009, when they
appropriated $10 million to fund various water-efficiency pilot
programs across the state. Nine pilot programs were jointly conducted
between electric and water utilities, and a third-party contractor was
hired to evaluate the results. The purpose of the pilots was to
determine how much energy credit could be given for energy saved in
``cold'' water conservation programs, and what the potential for long-
term energy savings would be if these water efficiency programs were
adopted on a more widespread basis.
After three years of study, the results showed that of the nine
pilot programs, the pilots with the highest energy savings were
distribution system leak detection and low-income high efficiency
toilets. The distribution system leak detection pilot was run by
Southern California Edison in three demonstration communities, and the
results showed that this particular program appeared to offer the
greatest energy savings potential (at relatively low cost) out of the
other nine pilot programs. In particular, the energy savings documented
in this report are based on leaks that were actually repaired during
the program period. The potential achievable water (and energy) savings
were estimated to be much higher by the program implementation
contractor.\2\ The numbers from the study are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.energydataweb.com/cpucFiles/33/
FinalEmbeddedEnergyPilotEMVReport--1.pdf
1. The total amount of economically recoverable leakage for
the three demonstration communities ranges from 60 to 116
million gallons per year.
2. The total amount of embedded energy saved in the three
systems-- from repaired leaks--was 178,143 kWh.
3. The total amount of potential energy that could be saved
with proactive leak detection and management in the three
communities is as high as 583,277 kWh.
Although this is only one study in one state, it shows the
incredible promise presented by repairing aging leaking infrastructure.
To date there is no federal program incentivizing this important
activity.
Question 2. Please describe the relationships that are needed
between water and electric utilities to better understand the water
energy nexus.
Answer. The Alliance for Water Efficiency and the American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy decided to partner on the Blueprint for
Action because there was no existing relationship of any kind between
water and electric utilities to explore the water-energy issues. We
wanted to begin a dialogue and start implementing joint projects that
would get both sets of utility mangers out of their respective silos. A
clear beginning is conducting joint research, but a longer term
relationship on actually implementing joint efficiency programs is also
needed.
The specific steps that we believe need to be taken to forge a good
relationship are as follows:
1. Increase the level of collaboration between the water and
energy communities in planning and implementing programs.
2. Achieve a deeper understanding of the energy embedded in
water and the water embedded in energy.
3. Learn from and replicate best practice integrated energy-
water efficiency programs.
4. Integrate water into energy research efforts and vice
versa.
5. Separate water utility revenues from unit sales, and
consider regulatory structures that provide an incentive for
investing in end-use water and energy efficiency.
6. Leverage existing and upcoming voluntary standards that
address the energy-water nexus.
7. Implement codes and mandatory standards that address the
energy-water nexus.
8. Pursue education and awareness opportunities for various
audiences and stakeholders.
The Blueprint for Action\3\ report goes into more detail on each of
these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Addressing the Water-Energy Nexus: A Blueprint for Action and
Policy Agenda, May, 2011. Alliance for Water Efficiency and the
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. http://
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/blueprint.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Responses of GP Russ Chaney to Questions From Senator Shaheen
Question 1. You mention that the Federal government should provide
incentives to help local communities adopt and enforce green codes. How
do you envision such incentives working to improve water and energy
efficiencies?
Answer. Here in the United States, we develop our codes and
standards from the bottom up, meaning that the best subject matter
experts, along with the stakeholders that are most affected by the
contents of our codes and standards, get together, and in a transparent
and consensus based process we develop incredibly comprehensive
provisions that make up our construction codes and our green codes.
However, regardless of how well codes are developed and provisions
that pertain to energy and water efficiency are deliberated in the
process, they will have no impact at all unless updated codes are
adopted and rigorously enforced at the applicable State or municipal
level.
Currently, many jurisdictions are delaying the adoption of codes
because we lack the agreed upon metrics to articulate a return on
investment (ROI) for implementing updated codes. Hence, delaying the
adoption of updated codes is often erroneously viewed as a cost
avoidance measure.
The Federal government can assist by having the Department of
Energy review updated codes and provide credible guidance in terms of
ROI and also articulate the peripheral ecological benefits of the
energy saving provisions contained in the updated code or voluntary
green code. Such information will provide all stakeholders at the
municipal level with the factual information they need to fully
understand the financial tradeoffs and benefits of adopting codes that
contain water and energy efficiency provisions.
This would be particularly effective for green codes that address
water efficiency as the incorporation of water efficient technologies,
such as high efficiency plumbing fixtures and fittings and solar
thermal technologies can be installed with minimal capital outlay,
especially in new construction, yet provide water and energy
efficiencies for the life of the building.
In addition, due to the economic squeeze that many municipal
governments are being challenged with, they are often cutting back on
the thorough inspection and enforcement of energy efficiency
provisions, and focusing enforcement inspections on the life safety
elements of the code only (fire safety, egress provisions, etc.).
Here, the Federal government can assist by providing financial
incentives to municipalities for hiring properly trained code
enforcement inspectors to staff levels where water and energy code
provisions can be properly inspected and enforced.
Question 2. In your comments, you alluded to the need to support
research for less invasive sub-metering technologies. Can you please
elaborate on this and say why this is important in terms of yielding
energy savings through water efficiency?
Answer. IAPMO currently has a Memorandum of Understanding with the
American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) to arrive at updated pipe
sizing requirements for buildings that take into account the new, lower
consumption levels of today's plumbing fixtures and appliances, which
are much lower than the consumption levels of those devices that were
made as recently as 20 years ago.
This gives us a huge opportunity to reduce the diameter of the
pipes in our buildings, which would provide essentially free water and
energy savings by reducing the volume of water between the water
heaters or boilers in a building and the point of use. While this
sounds easy to do on the surface, what we have learned in our efforts
with ASPE is that in order to accomplish this goal, we need to
understand how water is being used in various building types. Armed
with this knowledge, we can then arrive at the correct statistical
formulas to determine the most efficient pipe sizing requirements for
buildings in our codes.
The statistical formula currently used in our codes were developed
by Dr. Roy Hunter who worked at the National Bureau of Standards, now
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) back in the
1920's through the 1940's. We again need the leadership and brain power
of the Federal Government in assisting with this complex issue. Every
building that is constructed employing smart-pipe-sizing plumbing
systems will yield a lifetime of water and energy savings with zero
added cost.
IAPMO stands ready to work with the Federal government and other
stakeholders to gain a better understanding about how water is being
used in different building types so that we can make our plumbing
systems efficient as possible while maintaining health and safety and
ensuring system efficacy.
Question 3. You referred to ``smart'' water in your testimony. What
sort of similarities do you see between a smart water infrastructure
and smart grid and how can IAPMO assist in a smart water initiative?
Answer. As plumbing code developers, we are certainly not experts
regarding the technical merits or capabilities of a smart electrical
grid. However, in our view, there are conceptual similarities in
functionality that can be shared. Specifically, a smart water
distribution system would contain sensors to alert the owners of the
system to a catastrophic leak or failure and allow for the isolation of
such a failure in order to minimize the disruption of service to users,
minimize water waste and also mitigate the potential for contaminates
to infiltrate the whole distribution system.
It is also important to note, that as code developers, our area of
jurisdiction and expertise is contained to plumbing systems in
buildings, and not to water distribution systems. Leak detection
technologies can also be used in building plumbing systems to provide
real time feedback to building managers, enabling the repair of
otherwise insidious leaks that not only waste water and energy but can
also damage other building elements if left unrepaired.
IAPMO can assist by working within our compliance based code
development process to help codify such smart technologies and,
assuming such provisions are adopted by our members, require their
installation in new construction.
Question 4. How can IAPMO collaborate with major water utilities to
provide a unified water efficiency and conservation message to the
American public?
Answer. When we consider our looming water crisis, it becomes
apparent that much is needed in the way of public education and
awareness. As mentioned during the hearing, we need to initiate a
candid discussion about water with the American consumer.
IAPMO stands ready to work with water utilities across the country,
both large and small, and with Federal government entities such as the
EPA WaterSense division, towards the development of consumer awareness
and education materials that can be included in utility bill and made
available on the internet.
Our role in such an effort would be to advise home owners and
commercial building owners regarding water efficiency technologies that
can reduce consumption and save them money, while also making sure that
these technologies are installed in a manner that ensures safety and
meets plumbing code provisions.
Responses of GP Russ Chaney to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Please describe the similarities and differences
between the water ``grid'' and the electric grid. How are these two
connected?
Answer. As we mentioned in our response to one of Senator Shaheen's
questions, as plumbing code developers, we are certainly not experts
regarding the technical merits or capabilities of a smart electrical
grid. Having said that, as we gain better understanding of the nexus
between water and energy it becomes increasingly clear that efforts to
foster water efficiency also yield surprising energy efficiencies and
vice versa.
Question 2. What are the unknowns between the interconnectedness of
the two that could be important for policy makers at the local, state
and federal levels?
Answer. Currently, we lack data regarding exactly how much water is
being used to generate electrical power, and conversely, how much
energy is utilized in the treatment, distribution, heating and waste
treatment of water. Only the State of California has calculated how
much energy is embedded in these water based processes. Simply
communicating and illustrating what we do know about this
interconnectedness to decision makers at all levels of government, and
keeping them appraised of findings as additional studies are conducted,
such that they can better appreciate the ``low hanging fruit'' of
energy savings through water efficiency will yield very significant
water and energy savings.
Question 3. Could you please elaborate on the process you undertake
to get accreditation for your codes?
Answer. IAPMO is accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) to develop the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), Uniform
Mechanical Code (UMC), Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code
(USPC), and the Uniform Solar Energy Code (USEC) as American National
Standards. Accreditation by ANSI means that IAPMO utilizes consensus
code development processes which have been determined by ANSI to
contain all of the essential requirements for due process which ANSI
mandates be present in order to designate the document as an American
National Standard. These essential requirements include, but are not
limited to, the right that any person (organization, company,
government agency, individual, etc.) with a direct and material
interest in the subject matter be permitted to participate in the
development of the document by:
(a) expressing a position and its basis;
(b) having that position considered; and
(c) having the right to appeal.
ANSI also requires that the development process provide for:
Openness--participation shall be open to all persons who are
directly and materially affected by the activity;
Lack of dominance--the standards development process shall
not be dominated by any single interest category, individual or
organization; and
Balance--the standards development process shall have a
balance of interests.
The aforementioned IAPMO codes are developed utilizing committees
of technical subject matter experts and others who debate and discuss
the subject matter until the committee reaches consensus (not less than
two-thirds of voting members). The committees are balanced, open and
the development process is not dominated by any single interest
category. All members of the public are welcome to participate in the
process. The committee considers and provides a substantive response to
all comments submitted by the public.
In 2011, after conducting an extensive audit, ANSI determined that
IAPMO had achieved a consistent record of successful voluntary code
development of the aforementioned codes and ANSI conferred ``audited
designator'' status upon IAPMO thereby empowering IAPMO to designate
the aforementioned codes as American National Standards without the
need for additional review by the ANSI Board of Standards Review.
Question 4. Are you aware if the Department of Energy has made
water a consideration in any energy related regulations?
Answer. Largely, the Department of Energy (DOE) has long ignored
water and/or the imbedded energy within water as a component of its
regulations. In working with many DOE staff, we have heard them state
on many occasions that they are directed to look at direct energy, not
indirect energy. Many forward-thinking staff at DOE have stated their
desire to look at other energy savings potential, such as water, but
there has not been much movement in that direction. We do know that
agency staff have claimed they do not have the authority needed from
congress to look at the imbedded energy within water.
Question 5. In 2010, Battelle Memorial Institute released a study
on the energy efficiency impacts of hard water. The study concluded
that scale formed by hard water can lead to as much as a 24 percent
loss of energy efficiency in water heaters and that treatment with
water softeners preserved the original factory efficiency ratings of
water heaters over a 15-year lifetime. Are you familiar with this study
and its conclusions?
Answer. The WQA / Battelle study was provided to our Green
Technical Committee and was considered in the development of certain
provisions contained in the IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code
Supplement. As such, yes, we are familiar with this study and its
conclusions.
Question 6. Based on these types of results and the potential
impact of hard water on energy efficiency, do you believe that reducing
or eliminating scale is an important factor in allowing appliances such
as water heaters to maintain their Energy Star ratings?
Answer. Clearly, reducing the buildup of scale in water heaters
impacts the efficiency of water heaters whether it is an Energy Star
labeled product or not. Scale also robs energy and water efficiency by
clogging plumbing fixture fittings such as faucets and showerheads.
However, the Green Technical Committee did find cause for concern with
the WQA / Battelle study in terms of the water quality of the test
water selected to conduct this study and with the recommendations that
water softeners should be installed even in areas of very low water
hardness levels.
We know that water softeners can reduce scale and thereby help
maintain efficiency levels in water heaters. However, there is a
downside to water softeners that needs to be taken into account as
well. Most require the addition of salts. Backwashing these systems
consumes water and produces a brine that increases salinity levels in
wastewater and increase the utility costs to treat the water. As a
result, some wastewater utilities are currently not allowing the
installation of salt consuming water softeners in their jurisdictions.
It is interesting that you bring up this topic, Senator, as this is
a prime example of the type of water efficiency research that is
needed. We currently lack the metrics to arrive at an accurate
accounting of these types of tradeoffs and determine where it makes
sense to install water softeners (and similar technologies) and where
they may cause more harm than good.
Question 7. It is understood that IAPMO is currently working with
industry to develop a standard test procedure for ant-scale
technologies. Such a test procedure would greatly enhance the
opportunities for these technologies within federal energy efficiency
programs. Can you tell us what the status is of this effort and when
you anticipate the test procedure being finalized?
Answer. Yes, Senator, we are happy to report that there has been a
high level of interest in this IAPMO initiative. We are currently
developing IAPMO Standard Z601, Scale Reduction Devices. This standard
is currently being vetted by the IAPMO Plumbing Standards Committee. It
is expected that the test protocol validation and subsequent formal
approval of the standard will take about one year; therefore, the Z601
standard should be published in the early fall of 2013.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
International Code Council,
Washington, DC, August, 8, 2012.
Hon. Jean Shaheen,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee
on Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mike Lee,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
The International Code Council is pleased to address the critical
issue of the energy and water efficiency relationship. We wish to
extend our appreciation to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources,
Water and Power Subcommittee, and to Chairman Shaheen and Ranking
Member Lee for providing the opportunity to comment.
The International Code Council (ICC) is a member-focused
association dedicated to helping the building safety community and
construction industry provide safe and sustainable construction. We do
so through the development of model building codes and standards used
in the design, build and compliance process nationwide. Most U.S.
communities and many global markets adopt ICC's International Codes (I-
Codes). Presently, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have
adopted the I-Codes at the state or jurisdictional level. Federal
agencies including the Architect of the Capitol, General Services
Administration, National Park Service, Department of State, U.S. Forest
Service and the Veterans Administration also enforce the I-Codes for
the facilities that they own or manage.
The relationship between water and energy use has long been
recognized in many sectors, yet in the United States, we have
traditionally addressed each topic individually. There are three
primary categories for this energy/water relationship, each with
different stakeholders and drivers.
Centralized Water Supply and Treatment
Water Point of Use Applications
Energy Recovery from Wastewater
Centralized Treatment
Since the 1950's an increasing percentage of Americans and
businesses receive water supplies and wastewater treatment from
centralized, permitted facilities. Energy is consumed in the transport
of water to the treatment facility, in the treatment of the water
itself, and in the delivery of potable water to the customer. The
amount of energy consumed in transport will depend significantly on the
terrain and distance between the source and the water treatment
facility. This accounts for the fact that the California State Water
Project, which pumps water over the Tehachapi Mountains to users in the
southern part of the state, is California's largest power consumer.
Notably, future energy consumption for transporting water is likely to
be even higher as population centers are forced to reach farther afield
for sources of water. Treatment too draws significant amounts of
energy, and future energy consumption is also likely to rise as water
purveyors are forced to use lower quality sources. One extreme in this
regard is desalination, which consumes significant quantities of energy
using current technology.
Reduced demand for water resulting from water efficiency measures
can provide immediate energy savings from both transport and treatment.
Even modest water efficiency measures implemented on a community scale
through green codes like ICC's International Green Construction Code
(IgCC) can produce measureable energy savings for water purveyors. They
can also delay or eliminate the need for the construction of expensive
new treatment and pumping infrastructure.
Opportunities exist for similar savings by utilizing more
decentralized water sources and treatment. This involves the use of
alternate onsite water sources such as collected rainwater, graywater,
and HVAC condensate to offset or eliminate the need for conventional
centralized supplies with their embedded energy. While these systems
are promising, care must be taken to protect the health and safety of
the consumer through the use of codes like the IgCC and science-based
standards. Research and development is also needed to ensure that the
implementation of alternate onsite systems community wide does not
consume more energy than a comparable centralized system.
Point of Use Applications
It is the end use of water that determines the overall demand
within a region, and therefore sets the total energy consumed by a
centralized treatment system. Therefore, the less water consumed by
homes, office buildings, industry, and agriculture, the less energy
that will be consumed by water purveyors treating and pumping water.
There are many applications where reductions in water consumption
directly reduce energy demand at the point of use. The majority of
public supply water is delivered to commercial and residential
buildings, and ICC's model codes provide the basis for the construction
of almost all of these buildings in the United States.
As a result, ICC's model codes and standards are uniquely
positioned to provide immediate and measurable savings when implemented
in jurisdictions. For example, reductions in hot water consumption
carries with it proportional energy savings, all other things being
equal. If a traditional showerhead is replaced with a WaterSense
certified showerhead consuming 20 percent less water, as required in
the IgCC, 20 percent less energy is required to heat the water
(assuming the duration and temperature of the water stay the same).
Within ICC's family of model building codes, such provisions aimed
jointly at water and energy appear first in the base codes, like the
International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code(IRC),
International Plumbing Code(IPC), and International Mechanical
Code(IMC). High-performance model codes, such as the International
Energy Efficiency Code (IECC) and the International Green Construction
Code (IgCC), can provide even more savings.
Within ICC's family of codes, provisions that save water and energy
can be found for:
Bathing water (showers/baths)
Pre-rinse spray valves
Evaporative cooling towers
Hot water distribution plumbing systems
Dishwashers
Clotheswashers
Humidification systems
Carwash systems
Notably, the development of codes and standards for many of these
technologies are evolving rapidly. ICC's code process is designed to
reliably and predictably update all of our model codes every three
years, to incorporate new technology, recognize cost saving techniques
and systems, and to adopt alternative methods of achieving safe and
sustainable buildings. But the codes have no impact on buildings, or on
water and energy use, unless they are adopted and enforced by the state
and local jurisdictions with authority to regulate building
construction.
Therefore the importance of communities adopting updated and
current building codes cannot be overstated. Even relatively recent
editions of the codes do not contain provisions for many new water and
energy innovations. Failure to update codes may leave communities ill-
prepared to safely implement new technologies and systems and the
benefits they can bring when properly implemented. Both for financial
reasons, and sometimes due to the opposition of groups who want to
avoid the first cost of some code requirements, some jurisdictions have
delayed adopting current codes. In many jurisdictions, the codes are 10
or more years old, and do not reflect current energy and water
realities.
To promote the adoption of current building, sustainability,
electrical and life safety codes, ICC and the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) founded the Coalition for Current Safety Codes
(CCSC). Dozens of safety, environmental, and business organizations, as
well as hundreds of individuals, have joined this coalition to remind
states and local governments of the importance of regular code review.
Federal support for the adoption of updated model codes, through
both example and incentives, is essential for the safe implementation
of water and energy conservation measures of various types, and the
federal government should continue efforts to support the adoption of
current codes. Federal agencies have long been leaders in adopting the
latest codes and standards to assure long term sustainability and
safety of Federal buildings, and that leadership should be supported
and encouraged.
Coordination between the codes is also of critical importance. When
building, plumbing, mechanical, energy and green codes are designed to
work together seamlessly; the greatest opportunity to support water and
energy savings in the built environment is realized. For this reason,
ICC promulgates a coordinated family of codes that ensure that
provisions impacting energy or water are coordinated. This is the best
way to avoid unintended negative consequences to water or energy-
related codes, and to take advantage of positive interactions between
disciplines.
The IgCC, a new model code first issued as a 2012 edition, takes
the water/energy relationship one step farther than traditional model
codes, and seeks to balance the interactions between all elements of
sustainability in a building. Developed in partnership with the
American Institute of Architects and ASTM International, it features
the ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA 189.1 standard as an alternate compliance path.
This model code takes a balanced approach to sustainability, and ICC
recommends it as a framework for sustainability in federal facilities
and future legislation.
Energy Recovery from Wastewater
The final category in the energy/water relationship involves the
recovery of energy from wastewater streams. Here, thermal and nutrient
energy contained within wastewater is treated as a resource to be
utilized, rather than waste alone. At the point of use, drainwater heat
recovery can be used to recover thermal energy in wastewater to preheat
incoming water. Nutrients and chemicals in wastewater streams can be
mined using various technologies to extract energy in various forms.
This practice has already become common at wastewater treatment plants
where the energy is used to power plant operations. New research and
technologies aim to move that energy recovery closer to the waste
source.
Unique among green building rating systems and model codes, the
IgCC addresses the emerging technologies associated with energy from
wastewater, and provides for tools to measure such energy
In summary
Promoting water efficiency for all users of public service
water reduces pumping and treatment energy use and directly
reduces energy use at the point of use.
Modern, coordinated building codes are a vital means of
reducing both energy and water consumption that is immediately
available. These codes are essential to ensure that new
technologies and systems are implemented in a safe and balanced
manner. Federal efforts to encourage states to update codes can
produce measurable savings.
______
Statement of Plumbing Manufacturers International, Meadows, IL
On behalf of Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI), we
appreciate the opportunity to submit our written statement for the
record to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water
and Power's recent hearing on July 25, 2012 regarding the critically
important issue of water use, water efficiency and the impact water
efficiency has upon our country's overall energy use from the
perspective of plumbing products manufacturers.
PMI is the leading national and technical trade association of
plumbing products manufacturers in the United States. Our 31
manufacturers and allied members are responsible for at least 80
percent of all the plumbing fixtures and fittings sold in the U.S. The
majority of PMI member companies operates manufacturing facilities in
the U.S. and produces a wide range of from sinks, toilets, and urinals
to bathroom and kitchen faucets, showerheads, drinking fountains,
garbage dispos*als, as well as a variety of fixtures.
Water-Efficient Plumbing Fixtures Reduce Water Consumption Levels &
Wastewater Flows
It takes a considerable amount of energy to deliver and treat the
water we use every day. Heating water for bathing, shaving, cooking,
and cleaning also requires a lot of energy. With over half of all
indoor residen*tial water use taking place in bathrooms and kitchens,
improved water efficiency in plumbing products is central to our
nation's water conservation efforts. Studies continue to show that the
use of water-efficient plumbing products is effective in saving water.
PMI and its member companies are committed to protecting the future
of our national and local water supplies through water-efficient
plumbing products and practices. Efficient plumbing products help
consumers and communities hold down the rising costs of additional
water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure. Saving water also
reduces the energy required to pump, heat, and treat water throughout
the nation. Furthermore, using water more efficiently helps maintain
water supplies at safe levels, and protects human health and the
environment. Plumbing manufacturers are doing their part to improve
water efficiency not only in their own manufacturing operations, but by
producing an extensive number of water efficient plumbing products
which are easily found in retail locations across the country.
Growth of Water Efficient Plumbing Products & U.S. EPA's WaterSense
Program
Our commitment to water efficiency is evident in our industry's
partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
WaterSense Program. This voluntary program, launched in 2006, promotes
water efficient plumbing products and today brings to market over 4,000
water-efficient plumbing products from high efficiency toilets,
bathroom sink faucets to showerheads and urinals. These prod*ucts have
been consumer tested and reduce water consumption by up to 30
percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Products that seek the WaterSense label must: be water-
efficient, using at least 20 percent less water than EPA's fixture-
specific water use baseline-U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management-
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/about__us/watersense__label.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMI and its members have worked diligently with the EPA WaterSense
Program over the past several years to develop voluntary product
specifications for water efficient products. An open public process has
brought together the EPA, water efficiency experts, standards
developers, plumbers, and PMI member manufacturers to consider and
balance the range of technical and performance issues unique to each
product. When a manufacturer makes a product that meets those
specifications, the product is eligible for third-party testing to
ensure the stated efficiency and performance criteria have been met. If
the product passes the test, the manufacturer is rewarded with the
right to put the WaterSense label on that product.
For companies to use the label, they must sign a WaterSense
partnership agreement. Among other things, the partnership agreement
defines the roles and responsibilities of EPA and the partnering
organization, as well as proper use of the label on products, on
packaging, and in marketing and other promotional materials.
WaterSense now makes it easy for consumers, as well as builders and
plumbers, to find and select water efficient products with a label
backed by third party, independent, testing and certification. In fact,
the majority of our member companies produce products that display the
WaterSense label.
Rebates for Water-Efficient Plumbing Products
Some communities have water conservation plans in place that often
include residential rebates for products that reduce water use to
encourage the installation of low-flow fixtures which typically include
toilets, showerheads and bathroom faucets. How you obtain that rebate
varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some areas give away free
products, others give the money up front and, in a majority of cases,
others require proof of purchase. There are also eligibility
requirements and limits on the types of products. In addition to
products, some utilities offer free services. For instance, several
communities offer a free water-saving audit.
Consumer Outreach
PMI has developed and maintains a consumer-focused website,
www.safeplumbing.org, featuring important facts and guidance on clean
water, water efficiency, and health and safety in plumbing fixtures and
systems. In addition, our member companies have collaborated with EPA
through national ``Fix- A-Leak'' Week and ``We're For Water'' events to
drive awareness of repairing leaks and new water-efficient products on
the market. Specifically, PMI and its member companies have been
actively involved in a variety of public education campaigns
including--WaterSense Fix-a- Leak Week--typically held in March.
Dripping faucets can waste up to two thousand gallons of water each
year in the average home. Leaky toilets can waste as much as two
hundred gallons per day.
America's Water Infrastructure Challenge
High-quality drinking water and wastewater systems are essential to
public health, manufacturers, business, and quality of life in the U.S.
Much of our drinking water infrastructure, the more than one million
miles of pipes beneath our streets, is nearing the end of its useful
life and approaching the age at which it needs to be replaced. Water
pipes are leaking and bursting with alarming frequency as the nation's
plumbing infrastructure ages. Moreover, our shifting population brings
significant growth to some areas of the country, requiring larger pipe
networks to provide water service.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) and other organizations
have documented that our water and wastewater infrastructure is aging
and that many communities must significantly increase their levels of
investment in its repair and rehabilitation to protect public health
and safety and to maintain environmental standards.
According to a recent study by the AWWA\2\ , the cost of repairing
and expanding the drinking water infrastructure will top $1 trillion in
the next 25 years and $1.7 trillion over 40 years. As a nation, we need
to have serious conversations at the federal, state and local levels
about the funding required to repair our aging water infrastructure.
Deferring needed investments today will only result in greater expenses
tomorrow. As manufacturers of critical plumbing products that rely on
clean water coming from the tap, this is a critical issue facing our
industry and consumers. The longer we wait to make needed repairs and
upgrades, the more acute these problems become and the higher the costs
to American families and businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Buried No Longer: Confronting America's Water Infrastructure
Challenge, American Water Works Association, Feb. 27, 2012-
www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/GADocuments/
BuriedNoLongerCompleteFinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Plumbing Products Research
PMI supports research currently underway to discern future
efficiency levels, balanced against the ``tipping point'' at which
plumbing products no longer protect the health and safety of consumers.
In fact, PMI is currently part of the Plumbing Research Efficiency
Coalition (PERC) which is undertaking a building drainline research
study that will analyze the potential for blockages resulting from the
use of reduced flow water closets in commercial buildings and evaluate
the use of higher volume flush valve discharges at intermittent
intervals as a way to effectively clear drainlines.
The PERC research is intended to answer important questions about
product performance and design considerations at lower flow rates. Once
the research is complete, product/water efficiency questions will be
able to be answered with facts and research data. We may, in fact, be
at the practical limits of efficiency and any further reductions in
efficiency levels in some consumer plumbing products, specifically
toilets and showerheads, need to be based on scientific study in order
to ensure continued efficacy and safety in addition to increased levels
of water and energy efficiency.
The funding for this study took years to secure and came from code
organizations, a variety of trade associations, including PMI,
individual plumbing manufacturing companies and NGOs. Unfortunately,
the federal agencies declined to support this critical PERC research.
In the future, the federal government should be involved in the
development of key research programs and provide some financial support
for scientific study to ensure that increasingly precious water
supplies are used as efficiently as possible in buildings and homes,
while maintaining health and safety.
EPA's WaterSense program is an essential element in the development
of a water focused benchmarking initiative, but focuses on individual
plumbing products and not the use of water throughout commercial
buildings.
Conclusion
PMI member companies are committed to designing and producing
water-efficient products, without sacrificing performance. We
understand the importance of both water conservation and energy
reduction. Our association and its members continue to raise the bar in
developing the most advanced water efficient plumbing products and
further our commitment to preserving our environment. Our efforts will
help ensure reliable water supplies today and for future generations.
We look forward to working with the committee in the 113th Congress
to further discuss the important nexus of water efficient plumbing
products and its impact on energy use. In the meantime, if you have any
questions regarding our statement, contact Barbara Higgens, Executive
Director, Plumbing Manufacturers International.