Play video — original link
Play video
All documents
Agenda — original pdf
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting by calling (512) 322-6450. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2, 2014 2:30 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL, ROOM 1101 (BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ROOM) 301 W. SECOND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 MEMBERS:Michael Osborne, Chair Barry Dreyling, Vice Chair Clay Butler Carol Biedrzycki Grace Hsieh Cyrus Reed Mike Sloan Tom “Smitty” Smith Michele Van Hyfte For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/austin-generation-resource-planning-task-force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – July 2, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the June 23, 2014 meeting CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion regarding the report format, content and timing 3. Discussion and possible action on recommendations included in the report FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 4. Discussion regarding future agenda items including issues raised during Citizen Communications ADJOURNMENT
Item 2 - Draft Task Force Report as of 070314 — original pdf
THE REPORT OF THE AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JULY 2014 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted the Austin Climate Protection Plan (ACPP) in 2007 to build a more sustainable community. Every City department was subsequently tasked to create action plans intended to ensure that departmental operations were consistent with the ACPP. Austin Energy developed a Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2020 (the Plan) to meet these objectives, which was approved in 2010 and 2011 by the Austin City Council. As part of that plan, Austin Energy was tasked with updating the flexible Plan every few years. In April of 2014, the City Council named a nine-member Austin Resource Generation Task Force to review and update the Plan and make initial recommendations by June 30, 2014. In addition, through a separate City Council Resolution, City Council directed that a new climate protection plan with a net-zero goal for carbon emissions by 2050 be developed. As part of that plan, one of the sectors that must come up with final and interim goals is energy, with Austin Energy taking a lead. The resolution specifically calls on the Task Force itself to make recommendations on interim goals. This document represents the product of a dozen meetings held each week by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force since its creation in April. 2 AUSTIN GENERATION TASK FORCE JULY 2014 We have received numerous briefings from Austin Energy which can be found on our website. We have also provided the most relevant pages of those presentations in the appendices section. During these meetings, we have heard from planners at ERCOT, from Pecan Street Inc., and from various providers in the renewable, demand response, and storage industries. These presentations are also available on the website. At the end of May, after a day of presentations by Task Force Members, we opened the meeting up to the public where we heard from a host of speakers who spoke passionately and eloquently about the importance of the work of the Task Force. Video of this public input can also be found on the website. Unlike previous reports of this nature, the Task Force has not prescribed a mix of resources. Instead we have applied Council’s newly created net zero resolution as a primary metric to generation. We have based this report on the three pillars of Sustainability, on the things we think we know, …
Play video — original link
Play video
Agenda — original pdf
Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force June 25, 2014 – 10:00 a.m. Waller Creek Center, Room 104 625 East 10th Street Austin, Texas For more information go to: Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force AGENDA Sharlene Leurig, Chair Tom Mason, Vice Chair Kris Bailey Christianne Castleberry Luke Metzger Marisa Perales Paul Robbins Lauren Ross Stefan Schuster Brian Smith Jennifer Walker A. CALL TO ORDER – June 25, 2014, 10:00 a.m. B. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda, but related to the charge of the task force, with up to 3 citizens donating their time to one individual. Citizens donating their time must be in the room at the time the speaker is at the podium and must have been in the first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order. C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Approval of the meeting minutes from the June 19, 2014 Task Force meeting D. VOTING ITEMS FROM TASK FORCE 1. Consider and approve recommendations and wording for report to City Council on water resources 2. Approve Final Report and Recommendations to City Council Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force Regular Meeting June 25, 2014 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give at least 4 days notice before the meeting date. Please call Felicia Cancino at the Austin Water Utility Department at 512-972-0114, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711 Page 2 of 2 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR TASK FORCE’S REVIEW 1. Discussion of Task Force and Working Group Goals including discussion of prioritizing short term supply side and demand side drought response options and recommendations F. STAFF BRIEFINGS, PRESENTATIONS, AND OR REPORTS 1. As needed, staff briefing on any Task Force requests related to prioritizing options or Task Force development of recommendations G. REPORTS BY TASK FORCE 1. Working Group Updates 1) Evaluate City’s Water Needs 2) Examine Future Water Sources 3) Evaluate Potential Water Management Scenarios H. NON VOTING DISCUSSION ITEMS None I. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS J. ADJOURN
Final Recommendation Report — original pdf
MEMORANDUMTo:MayorandCouncilFrom:GregMeszaros,Director,AustinWaterDate:July10,2014Subject:AustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForceRecommendations,RevisedReportAttachedisarevisedreportfromtheAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce.ThereportisthesameastheonethatwasdistributedtoyouearlierthisweekexceptfortheadditionofthepageinbetweenthecoverpageandtableofcontentsthatincludesthelistoftheTaskForcemembers.cc:MarcA.Ott,CityManagerRobertGoode,P.E.,AssistantCityManagerAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce AustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForceReporttoCityCouncilJuly2014(CouncilResolutionNo.20140410-033) AUSTINWATERRESOURCEPLANNINGTASKFORCEMemberAppointedlElectedByStefanSchusterMayorLeffingwellPaulRobbinsMayorProTernColeLaurenRossCouncilMemberMorrisonSharleneLeurig—ChairCouncilMemberRileyJenniferWalkerCouncilMemberTovoTomMason—ViceChairCouncilMemberSpelmanMarisaPeralesCouncilMemberMartinezBrianSmithEnvironmentalBoardLukeMetzgerResourceManagementCommissionKrisBaileyJointCommitteeonAWUFinancialPlanChristianneCastleberryWaterandWastewaterCommission TABLEOFCONTENTSPageEXECUTIVESUMMARY2CHAPTERI—INTRODUCTION3CHAPTERII—GUIDINGPRINCIPLESFORAUSTIN’SWATERCHOICES4CHAPTERIII—AUSTIN’SWATERNEEDS5CHAPTERIV—KEYRECOMMENDATIONS7SECTION1.0IntegratedWaterResourcePlanandIndependentConservationAssessment8Subsection1.1BasicGoals8Subsection1.2AdditionalFocus10SECTION2.0—WaterConservationandSupplyProjectEvaluationMatrix11SECTION3.0—WaterConservationandSupplyRecommendations13Subsection3.1Short-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategies13Subsection3.1.1ProactiveImplementationonDroughtResponseStages13Subsection3.1.2PriorityWaterConservationMeasures13Subsection3.1.3Mid-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategies14Subsection3.2Short-andMid-TermWaterSupplyStrategies15Subsection3.2.1Short-TermStrategies15Subsection3.2.2Mid-TermStrategies15SECTION4.0Funding16CHAPTERV—RECOMMENDEDSTRATEGIESFORSTUDY16CHAPTERVI—CODESANDORDINANCES17CHAPTERVII—DEVELOPINGACULTUREOFWATERSTEWARDSHIPINNOVATION18SECTION1.0—BecomingtheMostWater-EfficientCommunityinTexas18SECTION2.0—LeadingaNewEraofRegionalCooperation19SECTION3.0—TappingintotheCityscapeasaWaterSupplySource20APPENDIXAppendixA—WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-DemandAppendixB—WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-SupplyAppendixC—WaterSupplyProjectDescriptionsAppendixD—Definitions—WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteriaAppendixE—RecommendedScoringSystem-COADroughtResponseDecisionMatrixAppendixF—ModelingDroughtResponseStrategiesRichardHoffpauir,Ph.D.,P.E.—June25,2014AppendixG—LakeAustinDrawdownSummaryAppendixH—WaterUseModelingRequestwithRevisedPopulationEstimatesAppendixI—AustinWaterNeedsEstimatesLaurenRoss,Ph.D.,P.E. EXECUTIVESUMMARYThisreportbytheAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForcerecommendsimmediateactionsthatshouldbetakenbytheCityofAustintomitigatetheimpactofourongoingdroughtandtocatalyzeinvestmentinawater-resilientandwater-efficienteconomy.TheTaskForcerecommendsthattheCityofAustinfirstinvestinprotectingandoptimizingwaterfromtheColoradoRiverunderitsexistingcontractwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthority.SpecificrecommendationsonpriorityeffortstoincreasewaterconservationandtooptimizeourexistingcontractwaterareofferedinSection3.0.TheTaskForcerecommendsthattheCityCouncilandAustinWaterUtilityfocusonlocalopportunitiestoenhanceAustin’swatersupplies.Theseincludeoptionsthatpreviouslyhavenotbeenconsideredatscale,suchascommercial/industrialwaterreuseandrainwatercaptureandinfiltration.Implementationofthesewatermanagementstrategiesmaybeachievedthroughrevisionstoexistingcodesandordinances,suchastheWatershedProtectionOrdinance.Italsomeansrenewingourcommitmenttowaterreuseforourdistributedwatersystem.Asafast-growingcitydependentonwatersuppliesthataresusceptibletodrought,itisprudentforAustinWatertoconsideroptionsforimprovingthereliabilityofourwatersupplies.TheevaluationofoptionsshouldbeundertakenaspartofanIntegratedWaterResourcePlanthatconsiderstherateimpactsofAustinWatercustomersandthepoliticalriskofprojectsthatcouldaffectAustin’srelationshipwithitsneighbors.ProjectsbeyondourexistingLCRAcontractshouldbeconsideredaspartofatransparentandcompetitiveprocesswithpublicinput.InvestmentsintheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanandrecommendationsinSubsections3.1and3.2shouldbeaccountedforintheFY15budget.Thesestepscannotbedelayed.Page2of2l I.INTRODUCTIONAustin’songoingdroughtisareminderofthesusceptibilityofoursolewatersource,theColoradoRiver’sHighlandLakes,toprolongeddrought.Weknowourregionislikelytoenduremoredroughtsinthefuture,andtobecomedrierovertime,bringinglessinflowtotheHighlandLakesfromlocalprecipitationandtributaryriversfromWestTexas.Wealsoknowthathighertemperaturesarelikelytocausegreaterevaporationfromourlakes,makingthemalessdependabletoolforwaterstorage.Austinisgrowingrapidly,andourregionisexpectedtodoubleinpopulationinthenext25years.Recognizingtheabove,theHighlandLakeswillremaintheCityofAustin’sprimarywatersupply.TheCitymustcontinuetoprotectandstewardbothourseniorwaterrightsintheColoradoandourcontractedfirmyieldwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthority.AnimportantelementofmaintainingareliableHighlandLakeswatersupplyisreducingdemandsduringalllakestages,notjustduringdrought.Weneedtoseizeuponthisopportunitytohastentheongoingculturalshiftinhowweuseandprovidewater.ThisisnecessarysothatAustincanretainitseconomiccompetitivenessandqualityoflifeandachieveitswateraffordabilityandsustainabilitygoals.Recentwaterusedatashowsthatbothresidentsandbusinessesarewillingandabletoembraceamorewater-efficientwayoflife.ThisreportistheTaskForce’srecommendationonimmediateactionsthatshouldbetakenbyAustinWaterUtilityandtheCityCounciltomitigatethewatersupplyimpactfromtheongoingdroughtandtocatalyzeinvestmentinawater-resilientandwater-efficienteconomy.TheTaskForceemphasizesthattheKeyRecommendationsofferedinChapterIVofthisreportshouldbeincorporatedintotheFY15budget.Therecommendednear-termstrategiesinthisreportareaneffectiveandappropriateresponsetotheexistingdroughtconditions.Thepresentdroughtishydrologicallyunprecedented,however,andweunderstandthattheCitymustplanforandanticipateafutureinwhichdroughtpersistsandevenintensifies.Shouldthisoccur,theCityofAustinmayneedtoinvestinadditionalwatersuppliesorstoragebeyondtherangeofeitherthecurrentorrecommendedstrategiesfordemandreductionandsupplyaugmentation.DuringtimesofcrisisAustinmaybeforcedtoexecutewaterdemandreductionandalternativesupplyoptionsthatmightnototherwisebeconsistentwithcommunityvalues.Forthesereasons,wehaveofferedadecisionmatrixforusebyAustin’sleadershiptoevaluatenewsupplyandstorageoptions.WealsooffertoCityCouncilourviewonprinciplesthatshouldguideourcommunity’sdecisionsinhowwemanageandsecurewaterforthefuture.Page3of21 II.GuidingPrinciplesforAustin’sWaterChoicesBasedonpublictestimonypresentedatourmeetingsandourowncollectivedecadesofexperienceinwaterresourcesmanagementandplanning,theAustinWaterResourcePlanningTaskForcerecommendsthefollowingprinciplestoguideourcommunity’swatermanagementdecisions:•WatertomeetbasichumanneedsmustbeaffordableforeveryAustinresident.•Watertomeettheneedsofhomes,businesses,andindustrymustbereliablysourced.•Watersuppliesshouldbelocallysourced,andwateruseshouldreflectthelocallyavailablesupply.LocalizedwatersupplyprojectstosupplementAustin’sHighlandLakes,suchasAquiferStorageandRecoveryandbrackishwaterdesalination,shouldbeevaluatedandprioritized,beforewaterfromotherareasisimported.•Savingwater,orreducingdemand,iswidelyrecognizedasthemostreliable,affordable,andsustainablewaytomeetwaterdemands.Buildingawater-efficienteconomyshouldtakepriorityoverdevelopingsuppliesthatcanbeexpensive,capitalandenergy-intensive,andenvironmentallyharmful.Conservationandre-useshouldbeahigherprioritytomeetAustin’swaterdemandsthaninvestinginnewwatersuppliesfromareasoutsideofAustin.•WatermanagementstrategiesshouldfurtherAustin’sgoalofdevelopinganewcultureofwaterstewardship,reducingpercapitapotablewateruse,andencouragingreuseandefficiency.•Indevelopingthisnewcultureofwaterstewardship,broadparticipationandsocialequityareessential.•Watermanagementstrategiesmustbeenvironmentallysustainableandcost-effective.•Severalwaterdemandmanagementstrategiesmustbeimplementedtoachievethemosteffectiveresults,includingaggressivewaterconservationandproactiveimplementationofAustin’sDroughtContingencyPlanbeforeemergencyconditionsdevelop.•TheCitymustinvestindemand-managementstrategies,inadditiontosupplyaugmentationstrategies,toeffectivelyachieveasignificantreductioninwaterdemand.Page4of21 •Cityeffortstodiversifywatersupplysourcesshouldnotcomeattheexpenseofaffordability,sustainability,andCityenvironmentalprotectiongoals.•WatermanagementstrategiesmustbeconsistentwiththeImagineAustinComprehensivePlan,particularlythegoalofsustainablymanagingourwaterresources,directingdevelopmentawayfromtheBartonSpringsEdwardsAquiferwatershed,andbuildinganeconomythatiswaterandenergyefficientandreducesgreenhousegasemissions.•TheCitymustactincoordinationwithandtakeintoaccounttheconcernsofneighboringcommunitieswhenconsideringwatermanagementstrategiesthatmayimpacttheirwaterresources.•TheCitymustactinconcertwithLCRAandotherstakeholderstoassureanLCRAwatermanagementplanthataccuratelyreflectsbestestimatesoffuturehydrologyinwatershedscontributingtoColoradoRiverflowsandthefirmyieldoftheHighlandLakeswatersupply.•Austinmustconsiderthelinkedimplicationsofincreasedwaterdemandsandenergy-intensivesupplyoptionsalongwithelectricalproductionmanagement,particularlyduringdroughtconditions.•Ourwatersupplyoptionsmustconsiderimpactstothenaturalenvironment,Austin’surbanforestcanopy,spring,creek,andriverflows,andthemyriadhumanandnonhumanlivesthatdependuponthem.•Austinvaluesitsresidentialandurbangardensandfarms,andthefoodsecurityandindependencethattheyrepresent.Forthewidestpossiblerangeofdroughtconditions,watertoirrigatelocally-producedfoodshouldcontinuetobemadeavailable.•AustinWaterUtility’shistoricalbusinessandfinancingmodelbasedonrevenuefromwatercommoditysalesbiasesdecisionsinfavorofsupplyoptionstothedetrimentofdemandmanagement.Thevision,inspiration,andmanagementofAustin’swaterdemandstrategymustcomefromoutsidethesehistoricalcommodity-basedbusinessandfinancialframes.III.Austin’sWaterNeedsAustinWaterUtilitydemandforecastinghashistoricallybeenlinkedtotheutilitybusinessmodel.Utilityforecastshavefocusedonindoorandoutdoorwaterusebycustomerclassasabasisforpredictingrevenueandforsizinginfrastructuretoaccommodatedemandpeaks.Page5of21 Theutility’swaterconservationgoalshavebeenlumpedintoasinglevalueof140gallonsperpersonperday.Thisoneconservationgoalencompasseswaterdemandconsequencesfromdecisionsaswide-rangingascoolingtowerinfrastructure,theefficienciesofcomputerchipmanufacturing,andwhetherthereismulchonourgardens,backyardsarecontouredtocatchrainrunoff,andwefixleakytoiletflappervalves.Itfailstodistinguishbetweenaspirationalgoalsandactualwaterneeds.AsAustinmanagesboththecurrentdroughtandanuncertainwaterfuture,weneedamorespecificanduse-disaggregatedmodelfordefiningandpredictingcommunitywaterneeds.Likeaspeedometerinacar,weneedawaterdashboardthatprovidesinformationspecifictoourvariedwaterusedecisions—onethatgivesusinformationfromwhichstrategicchoicescanbemadetotargetdemandmanagement,measurestheconsequencesofdemandmanagementandsupplydecisions,andevaluatesourperformanceagainstcommunitysustainabilitystandards.TheWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce,comprisedofcommunityvolunteers,hadneitherthetimenorresourcestodevelopthewaterdemandmodelthatwebelieveAustindeserves.Wedid,however,segmentwaterusedataprovidedbyAustinWaterUtilityandwherepossiblecomparethesegmenteddatatoefficiencystandards.Ourevaluationofwaterneedsdemonstratesanuntappedpotentialtosetspecificandmeaningfulcommunitygoalsforwaterdemandmanagement.DataprovidedbyAustinWaterUtilityforouranalysisispresentedinAppendixH.Adescriptionofourevaluation,itsresults,anditslimitationsispresentedinAppendixI.Afewofthekeyconclusionsofouranalysisarethese:•Residentialindoorwateruseisthesinglehighestwaterusecategory.AverageSingle-FamilyandMultifamilyResidentialcustomeruseinFiscalYear2013rangedfrom58to54gallonsperpersonperday.Thisamountishighcomparedto45.2gallonsperpersonperdayforefficienthomes.1Thepotentialwatersavings,ifeverycustomerhouseholdinAustinachievedthiswaterefficiencystandard,wouldbe11,300acre-feetperyear.•SinglefamilyresidentialoutdoorwaterusewasthesecondhighestwaterusecategoryinFiscalYear2011,andthefourthhighestinFiscalYear2013.Year2013wasrainierthan2011.Theaverageamountofoutdoorwaterforsingle-familyresidentialusewas50gallonsperpersonperdayforFiscalYear2011and25gallonsperpersonperdayinFiscalYear2013.Multi-familyoutdoorwaterusewas47and28gallonsperpersonperdayforthesameperiods.Singlefamilyandmulti-familyresidentialoutdoorwateruseappearstoberesponsivetorainfallamounts.•TherewasnodataavailabletothetaskforcefromwhichtocalculateestimatedneedsforindoorcommercialuseorusebyAustinWaterUtility’ssixlargecustomers.2The1AmericanWaterWorksAssociation,http://www.drinktap.org/home/water-information/conservation/water-usestatistics.aspx,accessedJune14,2014.2Samsung,Freescale,UniversityofTexas,Spansion,Hospira,andNovati.Page6of21 proposedIntegratedWaterPlanwouldfillthisgapinAustin’sabilitytoestablishawaterneedbudget.•NotalloftheCityofAustinwaterdemandsarereflectedinAustinWaterUtilitydata.AdditionalsignificantwaterdemandsnotreflectedintheutilitydataincludewaterforelectricalgenerationbyAustinEnergyandparklandirrigationusingdirectlakewithdrawals.AcompletewaterdemandpictureandfuturewaterroadmapfortheCitymustincludeallwateruses.NoonepersonorentitywillorcancontroleveryAustinwaterdemanddecision.AsecureandsustainablewaterfutureforAustindependsonbuildingacommunityvisionofwhatispossibleintherealmofdemandreductionsandwhatitwouldtaketoachievethat.Adisaggregatedwaterdemandmodelprovidesimportantinformationonwherethebiggestpotentialsforwaterconservationlie,allowsustosetmoremeaningfuldemandmanagementgoals,andprovidesabetterbenchmarkagainstwhichtocompareourwateruse.WerecommendthattheAustinWaterUtilitycreateacomprehensiveprojectedwaterdemandmodelbasedondisaggregatedusesandregularlyupdatedtoreflectadvancesinwaterefficiencyandconservationtechnologyandtocaptureotherfactorsthatweknowaffectwaterusage,includinglanduse(i.e.,density),waterpricing,andclimatetrends.IV.KeyRecommendationsTheTaskForcestronglyrecommendsthatAustinexploreadifferentapproachbeyondthecurrentutilitymodel.•WeencouragetheCityCouncil,AWU,andthecommunitytoembracenewdecentralized3modelsinadditiontotraditionalcentralizedmodels.•WeencouragetheCityCouncil,AWU,andbusinessandresidentstoexploreoptionsthatmaynothavebeenattractive25yearsagobasedoncost,wateravailability,andotherissues.•Theutilityneedstolookinwardandcriticallyassessinternalprocessesanditsabilitytorespondtochangingwatersupplyconditionsandtoimplementwatersupplystrategies.•Implementarisk-basedrenewalplanningapproachtofutureutilityneeds.Highriskassetsshouldbeaddressedfirst.•AustinWaterUtilityneedstoplaceapriorityondevelopingpartnershipswiththecommunity,withothercitydepartments,andwithotherentitiesinourregionthatshareourgoals.Refertopage10ofthisReportforadescriptionof“decentralization.”Page7of21 •DiversifyingsourcesandinvestingindeepwaterconservationwillrequirethatAustinWaterUtilitycontinuetoexamineitsratestructureandbalancerevenuereliabilitywithvolumetricratesthatstronglydiscouragewaterwaste.1.0IntegratedWaterResourcePlanandIndependentConservationAssessmentTheCityofAustinandAustinWaterUtilitymustdeveloparealisticIntegratedWaterResourcePlansimilartoLCRAWaterManagementPlanandAustinEnergyIntegratedResourcePlan.ThisplanshouldbebudgetedfortheFY15cycle.1.1BasicGoals•AnIntegratedWaterResourcePlanwillassistinidentifyingandfacilitatingopportunitiesforregionalpartnerships,technologycostsharing,balancedregionalwaterreliability,andimproveddroughtpreparedness.•Austinisnowthe11thlargestcityintheUnitedStates.ForacityofthissizenottohaveanIntegratedWaterResourcePlanisanunacceptablesourceofrisktoourlong-termeconomicsecurityandourqualityoflife.•Indevelopingthisplan,Austinshouldevaluatetheimpactofvariouswatersupplyandclimatescenariostoensuresustainabilityofwatersupplyandtoassesstherangeofoutcomesthatweshouldbepreparedtoaddress.•Multi-departmentalandcommunityinputindevelopinganIntegratedWaterResourcePlanisessential.oAustinEnergyshouldparticipateindevelopingandimplementingtheplan,openingupmuch-neededcollaborationontheenergydemandsofourwatersystemandthewaterdemandsofourelectricgrid.oWatershedProtectionshouldbeinvolvedindevelopingandimplementingtheplan.Theirexpertiseintheimportanceofmaintainingminimumflows,achievingthehighestqualityofnaturalwatersintheurbanenvironment,protectingnaturalhabitats,andthepotentialforrainwaterandstormrunofftosupplementpotablewatersuppliesarekeytoasecurewaterfuture.oTheOfficeofSustainabilityshouldalsobeinvolvedinthisplanandhelptochampioninterdepartmentalsolutions.•Demand-sideoptions(i.e.,waterconservation)mustbeincludedintheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanandbeplacedonparwithsupplyaugmentationoptions.Assuch:oThePlanshouldincludeademandforecastthatgoesbeyondextrapolatinghistoricwateruseorasimpleassumptionof140gpcdtoactuallyreflectthepossibleeffectsofpopulationgrowth,climatechange,landusechangesandwaterpricingondemandforecasts.ThisiscriticaltoensurethatAustinWaterPage8of21 doesnotoverbuildassetstosatisfywaterdemandthatisnotsupportedwithevidence.ThisTaskForcerecommendsusingthe“UrbanWaterDemandinCaliforniato2100:IncorporatingClimateChange”opensourcetoolmadebythePacificInstituteasamodelfordemandforecasting.oTheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldincludeanAustinwaterneedsbudgetdisaggregatedbycustomerclassesandindoorandoutdooruse.Adisaggregatedwaterdemandmodelprovidesimportantinformationonwherethebiggestpotentialsforwaterconservationlie,allowstheCityCouncil,AWU,andthecommunitytosetmoremeaningfuldemandmanagementgoals,andprovidesabetterbenchmarkagainstwhichtocompareourwateruse.oTheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldincludeanindependentanalysisofthepotentialwatersupplybenefitsofimplementedandnon-implementedconservationprograms.ThisConservationPotentialAssessmentshouldincludeacost-benefitanalysisofindividualconservationprogramsandwouldideallypresentacostcurveofwaterconservationprogramoptionstoguidedecision-makingonprograminvestment.TheConservationPotentialAssessmentshouldassesswhereuntappedopportunitiestoachievewatersavingsstillexisttohelpprioritizeconservationspendingbyAustinWaterUtility.TheConservationPotentialAssessmentcreatedforCascadeWaterAlliancemaybeamodelforthisanalysis.•Austin’swaterratesarelikelytobeaffectedbythestepswetaketoensurewaterreliability,whethertheseactionsaretoconserveourwater(reducingvolumetricsales)ortoincreasesupply(especiallynewcapitalassets).TheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldincludeacomparisonoftherateimpactsofselectedstrategies.SanAntonioWaterSystem’sIntegratedWaterResourcesPlanshouldserveasamodelforthisanalysis.•Theplanshouldconsiderallwaterthatthecityisusingandnotjustwaterthatis“run”throughtheutility.•Meaningfulpublicparticipationinwatersupplystrategiesisparamounttocreatinganewwaterparadigmtomeetfuturewatersupplychallenges.ThiswillenableAustinresidentsandAWUcustomerstobecomeeducatedandengagedregardingourwatersupplychallengesandtobepartnersinsolutions.•WorkonthisPlanshouldbeginimmediately,guidedbythisreporttoAustinCityCouncil,andshouldbebudgetedintheFY15cycle.Availableathttp://pacinst.org/publication/urban-water-demand-to-2100/.Page9of21 1.2AdditionalFocus•Decentralization:Thedecentralizedconceptistheideathatstormwaterandwastewateraremosteffectivelyandefficientlymanagedbytreatingit—andreusingit—asclosetowhereitisgeneratedaspractical.Infrastructurefailureandvulnerabilitiesareminimizedwhilewaterresourceutilizationismaximizedonalocalandhighlyintegratedlevel.Theoverallsystembecomesmorereliableandadaptabletoavarietyoffuturedevelopmentscenarios.DecentralizedstormwaterorwastewatertreatmentinfrastructurecanbepartofAustinWaterUtility’scapitalportfolio.ItcanalsobedevelopedeconomicallybyinstitutionsandprivatedevelopersatacompetitivecostofservicetowhatAWUoffers,amodelthatfreesupAustinWater’scapitaltomeetotherneeds•Watersharingwithagriculture:Austin’swholesalewaterprovider,theLowerColoradoRiverAuthority,provideswatertomanydifferentsectors,includingmunicipaluserslikeAustinandagriculturalwaterusers.Intheearlyyearsoftheongoingdrought,mostofthewaterdeliveredfromtheHighlandLakeswasdeliveredforagriculturalwateruse.AlthoughthepresentconditionoftheHighlandLakeshasresultedininterruptionofwaterdeliveriesformanyagriculturaluserscontractedwithLCRA,theremaybeopportunitiestogainmunicipalsupplythroughvoluntarycooperationwithagriculturalwateruserswithfirmcontracts.ThemostseniorrightontheColoradoRiverisheldbytheGarwoodIrrigationDistrict,whichusesthemajorityofitsrightsforagriculturalpurposes.TheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanshouldexaminethepotentialcostandwatersupplybenefitofvoluntarywatersharingwithGarwoodandotheragriculturaluserswithfirmrights.ThereisprecedentforsucharrangementsinSouthernCalifornia,whereSanDiegoCountyWaterAuthorityanditswholesaleprovider,MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthernCalifornia,gainedsubstantiallong-termwaterdeliveriesbyfinancingconservationeffortsbyagriculturaluserswithseniorwaterrightstotheColoradoRiver.•Codesandordinances:Codeandregulatoryimpedimentsliketheprohibitiononrainwateruseforpotablesupplywithin100feetofcentralizedwaterserviceshouldbecarefullyexaminedinlightofhistoricalandscientifically-basedriskdata.Graywaterandrainwateruseshouldbeallowed,supported,andencouragedinallsituationsforwhichanyhealthrisksarenomorethanotherwidely-allowedactivities.Regulatorydecisionsshouldbeindependentofanyconcernregardingtheconsequencesofmorewidely-availablewateralternativesontheUtility’sincome.•Diversificationofsupplysources:Reliabilityofwatersupplycanbeimprovedbydiversifyingsupplysources,afterwefirstassurethatexistingsuppliesareprotectedandusedefficiently.Newsuppliesthatarelocaland,whereappropriate,decentralized,arepreferredoverremotesourcesthatrequireenergyandcost-intensivepumpingandlargeupfrontcapitalcosts.Page10of21 •Developandfosterregionalcooperationtobuildareliableandwater-efficienteconomyforourregion,inpartnershipwithentitieswhoshareourgoalsofsustainability.•Focusonmultiplecyclereuseofexistingwatersupplies.Thelowestcostwateristhatwhichisalreadyunderourcontrol.•Waterdemandshouldbeaddressedbyrealisticallyassessingwaterneedsversuswants.•AustinWaterUtilityshouldmitigatetheratepayerimpactsofinvestinginnewsupplyoptionsbyadoptingacapitalplanningapproachthatattemptstodiscoverrevenue-positiveorrevenue-neutralopportunitiesthroughoutitsassetportfolio.Designingwastewatertreatmentfacilitiestocapture(andmonetize,wherepossible)thewastewaterenergyandnutrientloadisonewayofdiscoveringthisratepayerbenefit.Progressiveutilitiesaroundthecountry,includingSanAntonioWaterSystem,AlexandriaRenewEnterprisesandEastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrictalreadygenerateenergyorsellnaturalgasfromtheirwastewaterfacilities.•AustinWaterUtilitycanalsomitigateratepayerimpactsbyencouragingtheuseofprivatecapitaltofinancedecentralizedinfrastructurethroughoutthecity.GivenAustin’sextraordinarygrowthandthescaleofnewdevelopmentandredevelopmentcitywide,thereisvastuntappedpotentialtoprovidewatersolutionsthatdonotimplicatethebalancesheetofAustinWater,whichisalreadychallengedbynecessaryeffortsatwaterconservationandessentialcapitalinvestments.InNewYorkCityandSanFrancisco,privatelanddevelopershavedemonstratedtheeconomicopportunityofdevelopingparcel-scalestormwaterandwastewaterreuseprojects.Theseprojectsprovidewastewatertreatmentandnon-potablewateratacostof$11—$15per1,000gallons,makingitcompetitivewithAustin’scombinedwaterandwastewaterrates.Betterstill,theseprojectscanbedesignedtobenetenergyneutral,usingtheheatfromonsitewastewatertreatmenttoprovidehotandchilledwaterloopsthatcanoffsettheenergyneedsofthebuilding.Theeconomiccompetitivenessoftheseprojectsscaleswithsize,butwiththesmallesteconomicprojectpeggedat300,000sq-ft,therearemanyopportunitieswithinourgrowingcity.OneexampleofsuchaprojectistheNewSchoolinNewYorkCity.52.0WaterConservationandSupplyProjectEvaluationMatrixTheTaskForcedevelopedamatrixthatwerecommendbeusedtoevaluatedifferentpotentialwatersupplyprojects.ThismatrixincludesevaluationcriteriathatwebelievereflectsAustin’svaluesandrangesfromcosttosocialimpacts.Weencouragethecitycounciltodirecttheutilitytousethisorasubstantiallysimilarapproachtoevaluatepossiblewatersupplyprojects.Wehaveprovideddefinitionsofthewatersupplyprojectevaluationcriteriaandscoringcriteriainordertobeclearabouttheaspectsthatwefeelareimportanttoconsiderwhenevaluatingwatersupply.CoststatisticsfromEdClerico,NaturalSystemsUtilities,whichdesignedtheNewSchoolwastewaterproject.Page11of21 Despitetheimportancethiscommunityplacesonsustainabilityandwaterefficiency,dataprovidedbytheAustinWaterUtilityonthedemandmanagementandsupplywateryieldandcostsfavorsupplysideoptionsoverdemandmanagement.Potentialdemandmanagementyieldshavebeenunderestimated.Whilethepotentialdemandmanagementoptionyieldshavebeenunderestimated,costsfordemandsidemanagementoptionsweresystematicallyoverestimated.Althoughsupplyoptionswerecapitalizedover30years,demandmanagementcostswereinitiallybasedonallcostsoccurringduringthefirstimplementationyear.Theutilitymadesomeadjustments,buttherearestillaccountingdiscrepanciesinthecostcalculationsthatareunfavorabletodemand-sideoptions.Whileitisimportanttoevaluatewatersupplyprojects,theTaskForcedidnotfeelthatitwasappropriatetoscorethewatersupplyprojectsthatwerepresentedtousforseveralreasons.Wedidnothavesufficienttimetogointothelevelofdetailonstrategyyieldandcostthatisnecessarytoaccuratelypopulatethismatrix.ThenumbersthatwereprovidedtotheTaskForcewerefromdifferentsourcesandinsomecasesvarieddramatically.Differentmethodologieswereusedtoarriveatcostandsavingsconclusionsfordifferentalternatives.Thismadescoringprojectsinameaningfulwaydifficultinthistimeframe.Byscoringthestrategies,theTaskForcewouldhavegiventheillusionofprecisionwhenwedon’thaveenoughinformationtoprovideprecisescoringoneachofthesestrategies.Werecommendthatwhenpopulatingthematrices,AWUandtheCityshouldtakecaretodevelopcostsforbothsupplyanddemandmanagementprojectsusingconsistentmethodologytoallowforappropriatecomparison.Thefulllifecyclecostsofeachprojectmustbeconsideredoverthelifetimeofthatproject’sestimatedlife,includingconstruction/procurementcosts,landacquisitioncosts,costsofrequiredtreatment,pumpingandtransmission.Supplyprojectsshouldincludetheestimatedcostburdenonwastewaterthatwouldbeproducedbytheadditionalwaterthroughput.Onlywhenallcostsareaccountedforcansupplyprojectsbeaccuratelycomparedagainstdemandmanagementprograms.Inaddition,AustinWatershouldlooktootherwaterutilitiesthathavecapitalizedwaterconservationprograms,whichhasthebenefitofsmoothingthecostimpactonratepayers.Associatedcapitalexpendituresforallprojects,regardlessofdemandorsupplymanagement,shouldbeamortizedoverasetperiodandaddedtotherelatedannualoperationsandmaintenance(O&M)costforatotalannualcostoftheproject.AlthoughitisnotcurrentlyCityfinancialpolicytobondfinanceassociatedcapitalcomponentsofdemandmanagementstrategies,thisapproachprovidesforrelativecomparisonofstrategieswithsupply-sideoptionsandrecognizesthestatutoryandconstitutionalauthorityintheStateofTexastobondfinancedemandmanagementexpenditures.Progressivecities,suchasLasVegas,Seattle,andNewYorkCity,haveusedtheirenterpriserevenuebondstofinancewaterconservationeffortsontheprivatepropertyoftheircustomersonthebasisthattheeffortsservethepublicinterest,havequantifiablewatersavingsthatextendforatleastaslongasthelifetimeofthedebtusedtofinancethem,andaresecuredthroughsomemeans,suchasaconservationeasementorcontractwiththepropertyowner.Page12of2l 3.0WaterConservationandSupplyRecommendationsTheTaskForcebelievesthatAustinfacesimmediateandlong-termwatersupplychallenges.WerecommendthatAustintakeimmediateactiontouseourcurrentsuppliesmoreefficientlywhilemovingtodevelopadditionalsupplies.Ourrecommendationsareasfollows:3.1Short-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategiesThedroughtresponseandwaterconservationdiscussedbelowshouldbeimplementedimmediately.Conservationshould,however,notbelimitedtojusttheseprograms.3.1.1ProactiveImplementationonDroughtResponseStagesWesupportthedevelopmentandimplementationofanInterimStage3droughtrestrictionassoonasfeasiblypossibletopreservewatersupplies.WerecommendtheimplementationofStage3Interimatnolaterthan500,000acre-feet(combinedstorageforHighlandLakes)andStage4atnolaterthan400,000acre-feet(combinedstorageforHighlandLakes).PriortoimplementingStage4,however,theUtilityshouldremoveallrestrictionsforgraywatersystemsthatcomplywithgraywaterrequirementsofthe2012UniformPlumbingCode.Thisgraywateroutdoorwateringoptionwouldhelptopreservelandscapesandtheurbantreecanopy.(SeeCodesandOrdinancesChapterVI.)3.1.2PriorityWaterConservationMeasuresCosteffectivestrategiesthatreducewateruseshouldbeapriority.WerecommendthattheCityplaceastrongfocusonimplementingdemandsidestrategies(strategiesthatreduceperpersonwateruse)beforeimplementingsupply-sideoptions.Usingthesuppliesthatwecurrentlyhaveasefficientlyaspossibleisparamounttosustainablymanagingourwatersupplieswhetherindroughtoroutofdrought.AustinWaterUtilityshoulddevelopbenchmarkswiththeaidofindependentconsultantswithahistoricalcommitmenttoconservation,reuse,anddecentralizedoptionstouseinevaluatingpotentialwaterconservationprograms.Benchmarksshouldincludecostandotherfactors.•Costeffectivestrategiesthatreducewateruseshouldbeapriority.•Toiletreplacementprograms—replacingolder,inefficienttoiletsshouldbeapriority.Thereareavarietyofprogramscontemplatedbytheutilitythattargettoiletreplacement.•Capturingcoolingtowercondensateinnewfacilitiesshouldberequired.•Removeallrestrictionsforgraywatersystemsthatcomplywithgraywaterrequirementsofthe2012UniformPlumbingCode.ThisgraywateroutdoorwateringoptionwouldPage13of21 helptopreservelandscapesandtheurbantreecanopy.Othercodesandordinancesthatstandinthewayofincreasingourwaterefficiencyandexpandingtheuseoflocalwaterresourcesshouldalsoberemoved.(SpecificrecommendationsonthisareofferedinChapterVI:CodesandOrdinances.)•Engagehomeandcommercialbuilderstodiscouragein-groundirrigationsystemsandlimitirrigatedareainnewdevelopment(similartoprogramsimplementedbyGeorgetown,SanAntonio,andtheLCRA).Impactfeesshouldbehigherfornewconstructionbuiltwithirrigationsystemsandotherfeaturesthatusemorewaterandlowerforwaterefficientorwaterneutralnewconstruction.•Investincustomerwaterreportsoftwareorservicesthatcanrealizegreatercustomerwatersavingsandmorecost-effectivelymarketAustinWater’sexistingincentiveprograms.OneexampleisWaterSmartSoftware,whichhasachieveda5%reductionintotalwaterdemandin6monthsattheEastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrict.Thesoftwaregivescustomerspersonalizedreportsonrelativewaterusagecomparedtoneighborsandidentifiesopportunitiesforrebatestheyhaven’tused.Athird-partyestimatepeggedthecostofwatersavedthroughWaterSmartatamidpointunitcostof$380/acre-footforemailreportsand$400/acre-footforwrittenreportstocustomers.•Developingtheremainderofthecorereclaimedwatersystemhasthelargestpotentialwatersupplyimpactofanydemand-sidestrategiestobetterutilizeexistingwatersupplies.•LeakandPipeFailureDetectionandRemediation—ContinueandenhanceeffortstoreduceleaksandsystemlossesfromAWUinfrastructure,withgreatertransparencyoncurrenteffortsandacost-benefitanalysisofoptionsforreducingsystemwaterlosses.Specifically,developandsharetherelationshipbetweenlossreductionsandcosts.3.1.3Mid-TermDemand-SideManagementStrategiesWaterconservationprogramsshouldincludeamixofregulatoryandbehavior-basedoptions.•Buildingandplumbingcodemodifications;•BehaviorModification,includingsoftwaretoolstohelpAustinwatercustomersidentifywater-savingopportunities;•Education-ValueofWaterinitiativesandbuildingaconservationcultureshouldbeapriority;•Rebatesandincentives(e.g.,irrigationsystemremoval);•Consumptioncomparisonsonaveragehouseholdbill;•Thedecentralizedconcept(discussedabove);•Reclaimingstormwaterforbeneficialpurposes.Page14of21 3.2Short-andMid-TermWaterSupplyStrategiesInaddition,werecommendthatthecitypursueseveralwatersupplystrategiesassoonaspossible.3.2.1Short-TermStrategies•AutomationofLonghornDamGates;•WalterLongLakeOff-ChannelStorage(existingcapacity);•VaryingLakeAustinOperatingLevel—Implementatbelow600,000acre-feetofcombinedstorage.Thisstrategyshouldbecoupledwitharobusteducationcampaigntoinformthepublicwhythisisbeingdone.UnliketheLCRAproposal,thisproposalwouldbelimitedtonon-peakrecreationalmonths.6ForarepresentationoftheapproximateoutlinesofportionsofLakeAustinwitha3-footdrawdown,seeAppendixG.•CapturinglocalinflowstoLadyBirdLake.AustinWaterUtilityshouldimmediatelycalculatetheestimatedcostandyieldofthisoption.3.2.2Mid-TermStrategiesWeexpectthatthecitywillstudytheseoptionsinmoredetailtofullyevaluatetheirsuitabilityforwatersupplysolutions.•Tieredimplementationapproach.DiversificationofwatersupplysourcesshouldbeachievedthroughintegrationofregionalstrategiesidentifiedinCityandRegionKwaterplanningprocesses.Beginwiththeendinmind.•IfthereispotentialtoreplaceDeckerPowerStationatLakeWalterE.Long,andnewelectricsuppliesdonotneedthiswatersupply,theuseofWalterLongLakeenhancedoffchannelstorageshouldbeimplemented.•IndirectPotableReuse—TheuseofLadyBirdLaketoconveytreatedwastewatereffluentfromtheSouthAustinRegionalplanttoanintakefortheUllrichWaterTreatmentPlantrepresentsasignificantdeparturefromhistoricalpractice.Whilewastewatereffluentisroutinelytreatedtoaqualitythatmeetsdrinkingwaterstandards,thosestandardsarenotprotectiveofmoresensitiveecosystems.WeareawareofnoimplementedwastewatertreatmenttechnologyonamunicipalscalethatreliablyachievesthenutrientconcentrationlevelscurrentlymeasuredinLadyBirdLake.6AustinWatershouldclearlydistinguishbetweenthecurrentAustinWaterproposalandtheLCRAplanconsideredlastyear.Austin’sproposalisnotforayear-rounddrawdown;itmaintainsnormallakelevelsduringthemonthsofJunethroughSeptember,therecreationalhighseason.Page15of21 Nevertheless,underseveredroughtconditions,thiswatersupplyrepresentsasourcethatisinalignmentwithcommunityvaluestoexhausteveryavailablelocalsupplybeforeimportingwaterfromotherregions.Therefore,werecommendthattheCityofAustinconsiderexercisingthisoptionintheeventof400,000acre-feetofcombinedstorageorless.Dischargeintothelakeshouldoccurfortheshortestpossibletime.CouncilshouldrecognizethatpermittingforthewastewaterdischargepermitintoLadyBirdLakecouldtakeaconsiderableamountoftime.4.0Funding•TheCityshouldinvestigatealternativefinancialdeliverymechanismsforfuturewatersupplyprojects.•CityofAustinsignedacontractwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthorityin1999toensurethattheagencywouldprovidefuturewatertotheCityduringarepeatofthedroughtofrecord,prepaying$100milliontosecurethesupply.LCRAshouldparticipateinfundinganyfuturewatersupplyprojectsthatarenecessaryforareliablefuturesupplyofcomparablevolumetotheCityofAustin.V.RecommendedStrategiesforStudyDuringthecourseofevaluationsbytheWaterResourcePlanningTaskForce,anumberofstrategieswereconsideredthatcouldpotentiallyserveassourcesofwaterwithinalong-termframeworkorcouldprovideotherbenefitsoverbothshortandlongperiods.SomebenefitsfromemployingthesestrategiesarediversificationofAustin’swatersupply,minimalenvironmentalimpacts,andmakinguseofgroundwaterandaquifersthatarenotbeingusedtotheirfullestsustainablepotential.TheTaskForcedidnotfeeltherewassufficientinformationtoevaluatethecostsandbenefitsoftheseapproachesagainsteachother,butdidfindtheretobesufficientvalueinthediversificationofAustin’swatersupplyandstoragetomeritfurtherconsiderationandstudy.Thesestrategiesandbriefdescriptionsarepresentedbelow(forfulldescriptions,seeAppendixC:WaterSupplyProjectDescriptions):•ReclaimedWaterInfiltration-recharge(injection)oftreatedwastewaterintoalluvialsedimentsalongtheColoradoRiverandpumpingfromalluvialsedimentsdown-gradient.•AquiferStorageandRecovery(ASR)-includingintheTrinityAquifer,brackishEdwardsAquifer,andCarrizo/WilcoxAquifer.ASRbeendonesuccessfullybySanAntonioWaterSystems(SAWS)andthecitiesofElPasoandKerrville.•Desalination-brackishEdwardsandCarrizo/WilcoxAquifers.SAWSiscurrentlyconstructingalarge-scaledesalinationsystem.•PermanentintaketocapturespringinflowsfromLadyBirdLake.AnotherstrategytobeconsideredisflowaugmentationatBartonSprings.Thiswillnotprovideadditionalwater,butwillprovidesignificantenvironmentalbenefits.TheCityofAustinisinapositiontoincreaseflowatBartonSpringsduringdroughtwhenlowflowanddecreasedwaterPage16of21 qualitythreatentheendangeredsalamandersatthesprings.ThiscanbeaccomplishedbyprovidingwatertoEdwardsAquiferusersduringseveredrought,providingwatertorechargetheaquifer,andpurchasinggroundwaterproductionpermitsfromEdwardsAquiferpermittees.TheseactionswouldallowformoredischargeofgroundwaterfromBartonSprings,therebyimprovingtheconditionsforthesalamandersandminimizingharmtothesalamandersduringseveredrought.TheWRPTFrecommendsthattheCitygivethesestrategiesseriousconsiderationand,whereappropriate,conductstudiestoevaluatetheirfeasibility.Inadditiontoathoroughengineeringanalysis,thesestrategiesshouldbeevaluatedaccordingtothePrinciples(ChapterII)andDecisionMatrix(AppendixE)providedinthisreport.VI.CodesandOrdinancesWaterconservationanddiversificationofwatersupplysourcesareprioritiesfortheCityandarefundamentalresponsibilitiessharedbyallofitsdepartments,operations,andfacilities.TheseobjectivesshouldbereflectedintheCity’scodesandordinances,policies,andotherguidancedocuments.RevisionstoexistingordinancesanddevelopmentofnewordinancesmaybewarrantedtoachievetheCity’sgoalofdevelopingacultureofwaterstewardshipandacknowledgingthetruevalueofwater.Wherefeasible,suchmeasuresshouldbeimplementedasexpeditiouslyaspossible.Forexample,theWatershedProtectionDepartmentrecentlyconcluded,andtheCityrecentlyenacted,Phase1ofanewWatershedProtectionOrdinance,includingover220improvementstotheLandDevelopmentCode.ThepurposeoftheWPOis,inpart,toimprovecreekandfloodplainprotectionandimprovetheoverallhealthofthewatershed.TheWatershedProtectionDepartmenthasnowcommencedPhase2oftheWPOrevisions,whichexploreswaterqualitycontrolmeasuresthatincorporatebeneficialuseofstormwater.ThisPhase2processprovidestheWatershedProtectionDepartmentwithanopportunitytoensurethattheprinciplesofwaterconservationandenhancementofwatersupplysourcesareprioritizedintheirdevelopmentofordinancerevisions.Forinstance,WatershedProtectionshouldevaluaterequiringrainwaterharvesting,tiedintoadripirrigationsystem,forcommercialandmulti-familyprojects.Further,stormwatertreatmentsystemsshouldmaximizeinfiltration.Similarly,in2010,theLandscapingOrdinancewasrevised,butfurtherrevisionsarestillwarranted.AstheCitymovestowardbecomingamoreeffectivewatersteward,itshouldevaluateandrevisetheLandscapingOrdinancetoensurethatitisconsistentwiththeCity’swaterconservationobjectivesandmaximizeswaterreuseoptions.Examplesofoptionsthatshouldbeconsideredinclude:•incentivizesustainablelandscapes;•limitsizeofirrigatedturflawnsinnewdevelopments;Page17of21 •totheextentthatcurrentcodesandordinancesrequireturfgrasslandscapesbeforecertificatesofoccupancybeissued,theserequirementsshouldberemoved;•reduceallowableuseofpotablewaterforirrigation;•maximizeuseofreclaimedandharvestedwaterforirrigation;•requirecommercialandindustrialsitestouseairconditioningcondensate;•reviseexistingauxiliarywaterordinancesandrulestoeliminaterequirementstoreplaceexistingpipewithpurplepipe;•requireautomatedirrigationsystemstousedripirrigation(asopposedtosprayirrigation).Innovativewaterconservationmeasures,suchasresidentialgraywaterreuse,havebeenexploredbytheCity,andpilotprojectsareunderway.TheCityshouldcontinueinpursuingthesenewstrategies,andshouldinvestmoreresourcestoexpeditiouslyevaluateandimplementthem.Forinstance,theCityshouldremoveallrestrictionsforgraywatersystemsthatarecompliantwiththe2012UniformPlumbingCode.TheCityshouldalsoevaluate“laundry-to-landscapegraywatersystems”formulti-familydevelopments(newandretrofit).Decentralizedstormwaterandwastewatertreatmentandreusecanlimitcapitalexpendituresbycitydepartmentsforcentralizedwaterinfrastructureandcanprovidecost-effectiveservicesforlargedevelopment.TheCityshouldadaptitspermittingrequirementstoenabledecentralizedstormwaterandwastewatertreatmentfornon-potableusesandwhereeconomicallyjustifiable,providefinancialincentivesforthisalternativewaterservicemodeltobeimplemented.CodeNEXTprovidesanadditionalopportunitytoprioritizewatermanagementstrategies,suchaswaterreuse,intheCity’sLandDevelopmentCode.TheCityshouldusethisopportunitytodevelopaprogramthatencourageszero-net-waterhomesandbusinesses.Inshort,effectivewatermanagementstrategiesmaybeachievedviaregulatorymeasures,withrelativelyminimalcapitalinvestment.Accordingly,watermanagementshouldbeaguidingprincipleimplementedbyallCitydepartments.VII.DevelopingaCultureofWaterStewardshipInnovation1.0BecomingtheMostWater-EfficientCommunityinTexasAustinrightlytoutsitselfasaworld-classcityandcenteroftechnicalinnovationwithawealthofintellectualcapital.Austinshouldcapitalizeontheseassetsanditsreputationbycreatingadramaticandachievablegoalofbecomingthe“mostwater-efficientcityinTexas.”ThiswillPage18of21 requireclear,understandablemetricsthatgobeyondthecurrent140gallonspercapitaperday(gpcd)target,whichistheresultofthelegislativeprocessanddoesnotrepresenttheultimateachievablegoalforpercapitawateruse.Achievingthisgoalwillalsorequireaconsistentpublicmessageabouttheneed,andurgency,forachievingit(forexample,dramaticpopulationgrowthduringatimeofunprecedenteddroughtandclimatechange;recognitionofwaterasafiniteresourcethatiscriticaltothecity’shealth,economy,culture,andidentity).Unfailingpubliceducationeffortsarerequiredtoinstillanewwaterethic,aswellasanunderstandingoftherealcosts—andvalue—ofwaterinthe21stcentury.AustinwillrightlyfaceimmediatecomparisonswithotherTexascities—mostnotablySanAntonioandElPaso—thathavereducedwaterconsumptionanddevelopedanewwaterethicamongtheirresidents.ThosecitieshavealreadysurpassedAustin’sstatedgoalof140gpcd.Austinshouldcopy,andimproveupon,lessonsfrombothofthesesuccessstories,butitshouldalsolookoutsidestateboundariesforexamplesofinnovativemunicipalwaterprogramsthatmightbeappliedincentralTexas(e.g.,LasVegas,Nevada;citiesinsouthernCalifornia;Tucson,Arizona;SantaFe,NewMexico).AspartoftheIntegratedWaterResourcePlanrecommendedbythisTaskForce,theCityofAustinshouldadoptastretchtargetforourwaterdemand.ThisTaskForcerecommendsconsiderationofambitioustargetssuchasCalifornia’s20by2020plan,whichrequirescitiestoreducetotalwateruseby20%of2008levelsby2020.Anotheristhe90gpcdby2020challengefortheColoradoRiverBasinintheIntermountainWest.2.0LeadingaNewEraofRegionalCooperationAlongwithourrecommendationthatAustindiversifyitswaterportfolioratherthanrelysolelyonLCRAsurfacewater,wealsothinktheCityshouldleadaneweraofregionalwatercooperationratherthancedethatrolesolelytoLCRA.UnlikeLCRA,whichischargedwithaprimaryfocusonrawsurfacewatersuppliesfromthelowerColoradoRiverandHighlandLakes,theCityhasastrong“retail”focusonendusersoftreatedwaterinamunicipalsetting.AustinmayalsobebettersituatedthanLCRAtoworkwithitsneighboringwaterusers(cities,counties,waterdistricts)whomaynotbeintheLCRAserviceareaorwhomaybeinterestedinwaterfromsourcesotherthantheHighlandLakes.Ratherthanviewingwaterresourcesasazerosumgame,Austinshouldworkwithitsneighborsasaregionalleader.Aspartofthisleadership,Austinshouldregularlyconvenearegionalwatersummitwhereitshould:•shareitsstaffresources,ideas,planning,andbestpracticeswithregionalneighbors,andinvitethemtodothesame;•invitenearbycities,waterdistricts,counties,andriverauthoritiestoparticipate;and•stateanoverarchinggoalofachievingregionalbenefitsthatwouldotherwisebemoredifficultwithoutcooperation(loweredcosts,moreefficientuseofwaterPage19of21 supplies,increasedpublicinfluence),aswellasreinforcinganewregionalwaterethictoachieveefficientuseoflocalsupplies.AustinshouldcontinuetocooperatewithLCRAinregionalwaterissueswhiletakingfulladvantageoftheLCRA!COAWaterPartnership(formedundertheJune2007settlementagreement)bystaffingitatthehighestlevel.TheCityshouldalsocontinuetotakeanactiveleadershiprole,andencourageregionalneighborstodothesame,inparticipatinginrevisionstotheLCRAWaterManagementPlaninordertoprotecttheCity’slong-termfirmwatersupply.3.0TappingintotheCityscapeasaWaterSupplySourceUntiltheturnofthe20thcentury,Austin’smostreliablesourcesofwaterweretheBartonSprings!EdwardsAquiferandrainwaterstoredthroughleantimes.WiththeadventofcentralizedwatertreatmenttechnologiesandconstructionoftheHighlandLakesinthe1940s,AustingraduallyshifteditsreliancetowaterfromtheColoradoRiver.TodayweareremindedofwhatAustin’searliestsettlersknew:droughtisaregularpartoflifeinCentralTexas,makingtherainwaterthatfallsoutsidetheHighlandLakescatchmentareaallthemorevaluable.CentralizedwaterstorageandtreatmentislikelyalwaysgoingtobepartofAustin’swaterportfolio.However,anewgenerationofwatertreatmenttechnologiesmakespoint-of-usetreatmenteconomicallyfeasible.Point-of-usecaptureandtreatmentmaybecomeeconomicallycompetitivewithcentralizedwaterservicesasthecostsofpoint-of-usetechnologiesimproveandastheeconomicsofcentralizedwaterservicesadjusttohighersourcingandtreatmentcosts.Atthesametime,AustinWatershedProtectionDepartmentisembracingtheconceptofaugmentingitscentralizedstormwaterinfrastructurewithcityscapewaterstorage,recognizingtheeconomiclimitationsofapurelycentralizedapproachtocapturing,retainingandtreatingstormwater.(Itisworthnotingthat“stormwater”isatermthatregardsrainwaterasapollutantvectorandfloodsourceratherthanaresource.)Lookedatinthisway,ourentirecityscapecanbedesignedandretrofittedtofunctionasawatersupplysource.Theeconomiccapacityofthiscityscapeapproachtowatersupplyisnotfullyunderstood.Whatwedoknowiswearebarelyscratchingthesurfaceofwhatourcityscapecanprovidethroughthethoughtfuldesignofstreets,buildingsandparkstocapture,storeandtreatwaterforbeneficialuseintheCityofAustin.ThispresentsbothrisksandopportunitiestoAustinWateranditsratepayers.Ifweignorethepotentialfordistributedinfrastructureacrossourcityscape,weriskoverbuildingourcentralizedsystemandforcingwaterratesupward.Aswaterratesrise,theeconomicsofprovidingpointof-sourcesystemsbecomeevenmoreattractive,drivingevenmorecustomersawayfromthecentralizedservices,causingtheutilitytoadjustratesupwardtomakeupforlostsales,andonandoninaviciouscycleofrateincreases.Wearebetteroffrecognizingthepotentialforthisdisruptivetechnologyanddesigningourpoliciestoencourageitsdevelopmenttobestaugmentourcentralsystem.Page20of21 Wecanencourageinvestmentinthisdistributedwaterinfrastructurethroughcodeandordinancerevisions,creditstotapfeesandratestructurerevisiontoreflecttheeconomicbenefitofthewaterservicesprovidedbyprivatepropertyowners.Forexample,AustinWaterUtilitycouldadjustitsconnectionfeestoreflectthetruecostofserviceforlargecommercialcustomerswhoprovidetheirownwatersupplythroughonsitecaptureand/ortreatment.Page21of21 AppendixAWaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-Demand AppendixBWaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria-Supply AppendixCWaterSupplyProjectDescriptions WaterSupplyProjectsDescriptionsDEMANDMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIESOptimizeExistingSuppliesviaEfficiency&ConservationConservation-(DroughtResponse)Stage3Stage3DroughtResponse,asoutlinedincitycodeandthecity’sdroughtcontingencyplan,allowsupto6hoursofoutdoorwateringperweek,limitsoperationalhoursforsplashpads,andprohibitsfillingofspas/hottubs.Stage3Interim(HandWateringOnly)Asaninterimdroughtresponsemeasure,theutilityhasproposedanoptionthatwouldallowoutdoorirrigationonlywithahand-heldhose.Allautomaticandhose-endsprinklerswouldbeprohibited,but,consistentwithStage3,vehiclewashingatcertifiedfacilitieswouldcontinuetobeallowed,aswouldmaintenanceofnurserystockandoperation/installationofpools.ThismeasurewouldbeimposedwithintheDirector’sauthorityasauthorizedincitycode.Stage4Stage4EmergencyResponse,asoutlinedincitycodeandthecity’sdroughtcontingencyplan,prohibitsalldiscretionarypotablewaterusesincludingirrigation,repairofirrigationsystems,vehiclewashing,surfacewashing,andfillingofpools,spasandfountains.Conservation-(DemandManagement)MandatoryToiletRetrofitonResidentialResaleThisstrategywouldrequireahomeowner,inordertofinalizesaleofaproperty,toprovidecertificationbyalicensedplumberthatalltoiletsinthehomehaveflushvolumesatorbelowthespecifiedflushvolume(1.6gpfattimeofrecommendation,currently1.28gpf).MandatoryToiletChangeoutforCommercial&MultifamilyBuildings—PointinTimeThisstrategywouldrequireallcommercialandmultifamilybuildingstoprovide,byaspecifieddate(2017),certificationbyalicensedplumberthatalltoiletsonthepropertyhaveflushvolumesatorbelowthespecifiedflushvolume(1.6gpfattimeofrecommendation,currently1.28gpf),orbesubjecttonon-compliancefines.Limitirrigatedareainnewresidentialdevelopment—Thisstrategywouldlimittheareathatcanbeservedbyanautomaticirrigationsystemtonomorethan2.5timesthebuildingfootprint.Itwouldrequiresomeformofplanreview,whichiscurrentlynotrequiredforresidentialproperties,aswellasfinalinspection.RequirenewfacilitiestocaptureA/Ccondensateforreuse—BuildingspermittedafterthestartdateoftheordinancewouldberequiredtocapturecondensatefromA/CPage1of9 systemsforbeneficialreuseindoors(toiletflushing)oroutdoors(irrigationorrequiredlandscapearea),theoreticallylimitingthepotablewaterdemandofnewdevelopment.Requireretrofitofexistingcoolingtowerstomeetefficiencystandards—Thisstrategywouldrequirepropertieswithcoolingtowerstoprovidebyacertaindatecertificationbyalicensedplumberthattowersareoperatingatnofewerthantheminimumcyclesofconcentrationandwithallconductivitycontrollers,blowdownmetersandotherconditionsofthecurrentplumbingcode.Requirehomeauditsattimeofsale—Thisstrategywouldrequirethat,asaconditionofsale,homeownerswouldhavetohaveaprofessionalconductanauditofinteriorandexteriorwater-usingfixturesandprovideacopyofthereport,alongwithrecommendationsforconservationpotential,tothebuyerandtheCity.Savingsareassumedtocomefromgreaterawarenessbythebuyers,butarebasedonauditprogramsinotherstateswhereauditsareperformedforexistinghomeowners.TheCitywouldalsoneedtoencourageandtrainwaterauditprofessionalstomeetdemand,andtheprogramwouldlikelyrequireoutdoorauditstobeperformedbylicensedLandscapeIrrigationInspectorsaccordingtoTCEQrules.Mandatoryirrigationauditsforhighusers—Thisstrategywouldrequirethatcustomerswhousemorethan40,000gallonspermonthinanytwomonthsofa12-monthperiodundergoanevaluationoftheirirrigationsystem.Savingswouldbecontingentonthehomeownersimplementingrecommendationsoftheauditor;auditscouldbeprovidedby(additional)Citystaff,orfromathirdpartyatthehomeowner’sexpense.ImplementsmartmetersforresidentialcustomersThisstrategyassumesthatapproximately190,000residentialwatermetersareexchangedfor“smart”metersthatallowuserstoaccessreal-timedataonwateruse.Savingsarefromgreaterhomeownerawarenessofwateruse,andassumedtobeapproximately10%basedonresultsfromothercities.Theutilitywouldalsosavemoneyfromreducedlaborcosts,reducedwatertheft,andlesstimespentbycustomerserviceagentsonbillcomplaints.Additionalstaffformarketingreclaimedwaterprogram—Thisstrategyaddsanadditionalstaffmemberdedicatedtorecruitingnewcustomersforthereclaimedwaterprogramalongexistingandplannedlinestoreducepotablewaterdemandandcreateeconomiesofscaleinthereclaimedwatersystem.Waterbudgetrates(appliedtoirrigation-onlymeters)—Thisstrategywouldapplyadifferentratestructuretodedicatedirrigationmeters(typicallyatcommercialandmultifamilyproperties);possiblyapplyingtheresidentialtieredrate,orpricingallwateraboveacertainamountatthehighestresidentialrate.Savingsarebasedonpriceelasticityestimatesforreductionsinwateruse.Thestrategywouldrequirebillingsystemchanges,andcouldhaveequityorcost-of-serviceconcerns,asnotallcornmercialpropertieshavededicatedirrigationmeters.Page2of9 Hotwaterondemandincentives—Thisstrategywouldprovidea$100rebatetocustomersinstallingqualifyinghotwaterondemandsystems,designedtominimizethewasteofwaterwhilewaitingforthedesiredtemperatureinbathroomsandkitchens.ProviderebatesforO.8gpftoiletsThisstrategywouldprovidea$50rebatetocustomersinstalling0.8gallonperflushtoiletstoreplace1.6gpforhighertoilets.Currently,thereisonlyoneknownmanufactureroffixturesatthisflushvolume.Other-(DemandManagement)Leakdetection—Continueandimproveleakdetectionprogram.Decentralization(WW/Reuse/Reclaimed/NetZeroSystems)—Thedecentralizedconceptistheideathatwastewaterismosteffectivelyandefficientlymanagedbytreatingit—andreusingit—asclosetowhereitisgeneratedaspractical.Infrastructurefailureandvulnerabilitiesareminimizedwhilewaterresourcesutilizationismaximizedonalocalandhighlyintegratedlevel.Theoverallsystembecomesmorereliableandisadaptabletoavarietyoffuturedevelopmentscenarios.DirectReuse-CompletionofCoreReuseSystem(DemandManagement)-Thisstrategyinvolvesanear-termconstructionprogramtocompletethecentralpartofAustinsdirectreusesystemandinvolves19milesofpipelinemains,apumpstationandstoragetank.Completingthecorereusesystemwillenableasystemcapacityincreaseto2.2billiongallonsperyearforaprojected135customers.RegulatoryBuildingcodemodifications—DevelopmentinAustinshouldbedirectedatwaterconservationandintelligentwatermanagement.Thebuildingcodeshallincludepositivereinforcementofrainwaterharvesting,reclaimedwateruse,plumbingforgraywater/reuseopportunities,urbancanopy,waterconservationinnovations,andotherconsiderationstoimprovewaterefficiencyandpromotewaterconservation.Plumbingcodemodifications—Plumbingcodeshallincludemodificationstoimproveefficiencystandards,plumbingforgraywater/reuseopportunities,andincludeotherconsiderationstoimprovewaterefficiencyandpromoteconservation.Stormwatermanagementprograms/incentives—CityofAustinshouldreviewexistingpoliciesandprogramsandevaluateadditionalopportunitiesforthecaptureofadditionalwatersupplyfromstormwaterflows.Theseprogramsshouldincludetheevaluationofexampleutilitiesinthathavesuccessfullyimplementedtheseprogramsandtheconsiderationofphysicalinfrastructuretoaccomplishsuchgoals.Landusemanagementprograms/incentives—Developandfocusonlow-impactdevelopmentstrategytargetedtoretainandrestorethehydrologytomorenativeconditions.Page3of9 Graywateruseprograms/incentives—CityofAustinshouldreviewexistingpoliciesandprogramsandevaluateadditionalopportunitiesforexpansionoftheuseofgraywaterwithinitsjurisdiction.Theseprogramsshouldincludetheevaluationofexampleutilitiesinthathavesuccessfullyimplementedtheseprogramsandtheconsiderationofphysicalinfrastructuretoaccomplishsuchgoals.Developers/industrybringtheirownwater—CityofAustinshouldrequireanynewdevelopmenttoprovideasecurewatersupplytothedevelopmentatthetimeofpermitapplication.ThiscanincludeCityofAustinwatersupplybutshouldincludefirmdeliveryamountsandagreementspriortobuildingapproval.ParticipateinLCRAManagementPlanprocess—CityofAustinsignedacontractwiththeLowerColoradoRiverAuthorityin1999toensurethattheagencywouldguaranteefuturewatertothecity,prepaying$100milliontosecurethesupply.LCRAshouldparticipateinfundinganyfuturewatersupplyprojectsthatarenecessaryforareliablefuturesupplyofcomparablevolumetotheCityofAustin.TheCityshouldcontinueitsparticipationintheLCRAmanagementplanprocesswithafocusonearlierimplementationofwaterconservationanddroughttriggerresponses.Inaddition,thisparticipationshouldpromotethestorageintheHighlandLakesandwaterconservationprogramconsistencyamongwaterusersoftheLCRAsystem.Waterpricingstructures—Developmoreaggressivewaterpricingstructuresfordroughtandwatersupplyrestrictions.Enterintodroughtstagesearlier—Enterintowatersupplyrestrictionsanddroughtdeclarationsearlierbasedonimprovedtriggersandrecentdata.BehavioralIncentivesforconservationprograms—Waterconservationshouldbepromotedandincentivizedwhereopportunitiesexist.ThemostaffordablewateriswaterthatisalreadyundertheCity’scontrol.Citycodes,policies,andproceduresshouldallbegearedtoimprovewaterefficiencyandpromoteconservation.Incentivesforrainwaterharvestingsystems—CityofAustinshouldincentivizeopportunitiesforadditionalexpansionofrainwaterharvestingprogramswithinjurisdiction.Cityshouldconsideroptionssuchasaddingrainwaterharvestingtoprovidedecentralizedopportunitieswithincurrentdistributionsystemandexpandingtheexistingrebateprograms.Reviewofexistingregulationsandpoliciesshouldbeconductedtofindopportunitiesforwaterefficiencythroughrainwatercapture.Thesepoliciesshouldbereviewedinconjunctionwithstormwatermanagementpoliciestoidentifyopportunitiestoworktogether.WaterEducationInitiatives—CityofAustinshoulddevelopaneducationprogramtoinstillanewwaterethic,aswellasanunderstandingofthecost/valueofwaterwithinthecommunity.ThiseducationwouldinvolveaconsistentpublicmessageabouttheneedandurgencytomeetPage4of9 theCity’swaterneedsforourrapidlygrowingpopulationwhilesustainingafiniteresourcethatiscriticaltohealth,economy,culture,andidentity.Consumptioncomparisonaverageonwaterbill—AWUcustomerwouldreceiveamonthlywaterusecomparisonwithneighborhood/zipcodewaterconsumptioncomparisonontheirCQAutilitybill.Theintentoftheprogramistobringawarenesstotheirwateruseandprovideabasisforcomparisontoaverageuseintheirareaorseasonaluse.SUPPLYMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIESAugmentationofSuppliesSystemOperationalImprovementsofExistingSuppliesLonghornDamGateOperation—PrimaryreleasesfromLonghornDamarefrombasculegates.Pulseflowsresultinexcessreleases.LCRAdesignedandfundedinstallationofknifegatesforimprovedperformancebutstillcannotcontrolflowstomatchdownstreamflowneeds.ProjectisbeingcoordinatedbyLCRAandAE,whichinvolvesshiftingoperationstouseexistingliftgatestoreleasewaterthroughLonghornDam.Providesmoreflexibilityandbetterdebriscontrol.Notethatthisoperationapproachwasusedhistoricallypriortotheinstallationoftheknifegates(sometimesreferredtoaskeyholes).ReducedLakeEvaporation-includeFayette—NSF-approvedproductappliedtolakestoformamonolayerthatreducesevaporation.Productismadefrominsolublefattyacidsfromcoconutsandpalmandcomesinapowderformwhichbiodegradeswithin72hours.Literatureontheproductandprocessindicatesthatevaporationcouldbereducedby20to30%.Theproductwouldneedtoberegularlyappliedtothelakesurfacesusingaspreadingprocesssuchasapplicationfromthesternofamotorboat.Forthepurposesofcomparativeanalysis,estimatesofwatersavingsfromreducedevaporationfromthisprojectfromLadyBirdLakeandLakeLongweredeveloped.Theremaybeotherproductsormethodsinthearenaofevaporationthatcouldbeexplored.WalterLong(Decker)LakeOff-ChannelStorage—LakeLongisusedforcoolingwaterforDeckerPowerStation.WaterfromtheColoradoRiverisdivertedtoprovidemakeupwaterforevaporationtomaintainthislakeforsteam-electriccoolingpurposes.Thepowerplantcanoperatewitha3-ft.variationinlakelevel(whichrepresentsavolumeofapproximately3,750AF).TheapproachwouldbetosavemorewaterinlakesTravisandBuchananthroughstrategiclakerefilloperationscoordinationwithLCRAinwetterlocalconditionsand,potentially,throughtimelyreleasesfromtheLakeLong’sdamtopossiblysatisfydownstreamrequirements,includingmeetingenvironmentalflowrequirements.Page5of9 SARDischargeRelocationaboveAustinGauge—ProjecttorelocateaportionoftheSARWWTPtreatedeffluentdischargetoupstreamoftheriverflowgageknownasthe“Austingage”,whichislocatednearUS183bridgeovertheColoradoRivernotfardownstreamofLonghornDam.TheapproachwouldbetousedischargeflowtomeetenvironmentalflowrequirementsattheAustingage.LCRA’sWaterManagementPlan(WMP)requiresLCRAtomaintaina46cubicfeetpersecond(cfs)minimumflowatthatgage.ThisprojectwouldonlybebeneficialwhenenvironmentalflowmaintenanceatthisgageisthecontrollingfactorinLCRAreleasesfromupstreamreservoirs.TheKriegFieldreclaimedwaterlinecouldbeusedtodischargeflowbelowLonghornDam.Thisprojectwouldrequireawastewaterdischargepermit.LakeAustinVaryingOperatingLevel—ProjecttovaryLakeAustinlakelevelsseasonallytoallowlocalflowstobecapturedratherthan“spilled”downstream.Droughtresponseemergencyoperationalapproachwouldbetoletlocalusagedrawthelakeleveldownafewfeettobeabletocatchrunofffromlocalstormeventsshouldtheyoccur.Thisapproachwouldallowforcontrolleduseofthatrunoffasopposedtothatwaterspillingoverthedamtoflowdownstreamevenifisnotneededdownstreamatthattime.Recentraineventsin2012and2013inAustinareexamplesofeventthatcouldhaveresultedincombinedstoragebenefitstothisoperationalapproach.TheseeventsdidnotprovidesignificantinflowstolakesTravisandBuchananbutdidprovidelargeamountsofrunoffintoLakeAustinandotherareasofAustintotheeast.EnhancedOperationsInvolvingAdditionalCapital,PermittingorCommunityImpactAutomateLonghornGates—ProjecttoautomateLonghornDamknifegatestoprovideimprovedoperationalcontrolonflowreleases.Thisprojectwouldalsoprovidetrashrackstopreventclogging.Theprojectwouldminimizestafftimerequiredtoconductgateoperationstofinetuneflowcontrol.WalterLong(Decker)LakeOff-ChannelStorage(enhancedstorage)—EnhanceoperationsofLongLaketoallowmorefluctuationinlakeleveluptoapproximately25feet.ProjectwouldresultinoperatingLongLakeessentiallyasanoff-channelstoragereservoirtobenefitstoragelevelsinlakesTravisandBuchanan.LakeLongholdsapproximately30,000AFwhenfull.TheconceptwouldallowwaterfromLongLaketobereleasedtomeetdownstreamneeds,includingenvironmentalflowsandotheruses,whichwouldotherwiseneedtobereleasedfromlakesTravisandBuchanan.ProjectwouldrequiremakingimprovementstoincreaseabilitytorefilllakebyincreasingpumpingcapacityatColoradoRiverpumpstationandbybuildingareclaimedwatermainfromWalnutCreekWWTPtoLakeLong.AreclaimedwatermainalongthisgeneralrouteisincludedintheReclaimedMasterPlanandwouldbebeneficialforotherpurposes.ProjectwouldnecessitatetakingDeckerPowerStationPlantoff-line.AustinEnergy(AE)isintheprocessofconductingtheir2014GenerationPlanupdate.AEisevaluatingfutureoptionsatthissite.ItisanticipatedthatsignificantchangesmaybePage6of9 forthcoming,whichmaycreateimprovedopportunitiesforuseofLakeLonginthismanner.AWUwillcontinuetocoordinatewithAEontimingaspects,asnecessary.CaptureLocalInflowstoLadyBirdLake—ProjectwouldinstallafloatingpumpintakebelowTomMillerDamandatransmissionmaintopumpwaterfromLadyBirdLake(LBL)intotheUllrichWaterTreatmentPlantintakelinefortreatmentanddeliveryintoAustin’swaterdistributionsystem.Thisprojectwouldallowforthecaptureofspringflows,includingflowsfromBartonSpringsthatflowintoLBL,andotherstormflowswhentheyarenotneededdownstreamforenvironmentalflowmaintenanceorfordownstreamseniorwaterrights.AquiferStorage&Recovery—Projectwouldstorewaterundergroundforlateruse.Keystothisprojectincludesourcewaterandlocatingasuitableaquifer.ColoradoRiversourcedwaterwouldnotaddressthecurrentdrought.Conceptuallywaterisstoredintimeswhenexcesswaterisavailableforstoragesothatitcanbetakenoutforusewhenneeded.UseofreclaimedwaterforthepurposesofstoringwaterfortheASRprojectcanincreasenear-termsupplybutmaynotprovidebenefitstocombinedstorageoflakesTravisandBuchananifwaterwouldneedtobereleasedfromthelakestomakeupthewaterbeingstoredintheASRproject.ProjectconsideredNorthernEdwardsAquiferwithWalnutCreekWWTPasasourceofreclaimedwater.ProjectrequiresconstructionofconveyancepipelineandASRwells.IndirectPotableReuse-SARtoLadyBirdLake—ProjectwouldmoveaportionoftheSouthAustinRegional(SAR)WastewaterTreatmentPlant(WWTP)dischargetoLadyBirdLake(LBL).RequiresaccelerationofreclaimedwatermainsidentifiedintheReclaimedMasterPlan.WaterwouldbewithdrawnfromanewintakepumpstationonLBLbelowTomMillerDam.ProjectwouldrequireconstructionofpumpingfacilitiesandpipelinetomovethewaterfromLBLintotheUllrichWTPintakeline.Systemwouldonlyoperatewhendownstreamdemandsarebeingmet.Basedonpreliminaryassessment,theretentiontimeinLBLforthiswaterisapproximately6months.ProjectwouldrequirenutrientremovalatSARWWTPforthetreatedWWTPeffluentwatertobedischargedintoLBL.BartonSpringsCapture&Augmentation—Groundwaterpumpingcouldbeoffsetbyconnectiontoalternatewatersupply,includingCityofAustin,toallowforadditionalspringflowduringcriticalflowneeds.Environmentalbenefitsareexpected,however,nonewwatersupplyvolumeisgeneratedfromthisstrategyasadditionalsurfacewaterwouldmeetmostoffsetdemand.Waterrightretirementorpurchaseisanothercomponentofthisstrategythatoffersbenefitswithoutanyinfrastructureorsupplyimpacts.Page7of9 NewGroundwaterSuppliesBlueWaterSystems(Treat&Deliver)—ExistingprojectsupplyingCarrizo-WilcoxwatertoalocationeastofAustinneartheCityofManor.BlueWaterSystemsholdspermitsforexportofupto75,000AF/yearfromthePostOakSavannaGCD.Theprojectcurrentlysupplies1-2MGDtootherentitieseastofAustininthevicinityofSH130andUS290.ExistingsystemcanbeexpandedtosupplyAustinwithapproximately10MGD.BlueWaterwouldberesponsibleforexpansionconstructionwithcostrecoveredinrates.Atake-or-paycontractwouldberequired.Acontractcouldbeforbetween5and30years.Forestar—ForestarhasgroundwaterleasesinBastropandLeeCounties.However,thereisnoexistinginfrastructure.ForestarhasacontractwithHaysCountytoreserve45,000AF/yearfor$1millionperyear.Thecompanyhasappliedfor45,000AFperyearinpermitsfromtheLostPinesGCDbutreceivedpermitsforonly12,000AF/year.Forestarhasfiledsuitforpermits.Infrastructuredevelopmentdependsonlong-termcontract.Availabilityisunknown.NorthernEdwardsWeilfield—NorthernEdwardshasbeenusedbyentitiesinthepast(LamplightVillage),however,thewellyieldsaretypicallylow1MGD.Thewaterqualityisgood,however,compatibilitywouldneedtobedeterminedandverified.Projectwouldrequirelandpurchases.VistaRidge—ConsortiumincludingBlueWaterSystems,whichrespondedtoSAWS’srequestforproposalsforwatersupply.50,000AFofpermittedCarrizo-Wilcoxwater.ProjectwouldincludeconstructionofapipelinefromBurlesonCo.toSanAntonioandothertreatmentanddeliveryfacilities.Hays-CaldwellPublicUtilityAuthority—BriefDescription:PublicUtilityAuthoritymadeupofSanMarcos,Kyle,Buda,CrystalClear,andCanyonRegional.Thereisnoexistinginfrastructure.HCPUAhaspermitsfor10,400Ac-Ft/YrfromtheGonzalesCountyGCDandapartnershipwithTexasWaterAllianceforanadditional15,000Ac-Ft/Yr.TrinityAquiferSupplies—ExploreopportunitiesforlimitedwatersupplydiversificationinthewesternandsouthernportionsoftheCity’sserviceareathathaveaccesstothesesupplementalwatersupplies.OtherNewSuppliesBrackishdesalination—DevelopwellsindowndipbrackishzoneoftheEdwardsAquifer,generallyinthesoutheastareaofAustinnearUS183andSH130.Projectwouldrequiredesalinationplant,drillingandcompletionof20productionwellsand8disposalwells,andextensivelandpurchases.Page8of9 Reclaimedwaterbankinfiltration—SpreadeffluentfromtheSouthAustinRegional(SAR)WWTPinaninfiltrationbasin,whichwouldrechargeintothelocalColoradoAlluviumformation.Thenrecapturethewaterinalluvialwellsalongtheriver.Oncethewaterisrecaptured,itispumpedtothewatertreatmentplanthroughapipeline.Thisoptionrequiressignificantlandpurchases.ColoradoBedandBanks—Recapturedischargedeffluentdownstreamtobepumpedbackupstreamfortreatment.CityofAustinandLCRAhaveappliedjointlyforthewaterrightspermit,inaccordancewiththetermsofthe2007settlementagreementbetweenAustinandLCRA.Rainwaterharvesting—WatersupplyaugmentationforCityofAustinwatersuppliesshouldbeconsideredunderthegeneralprinciplethatdiversificationofwatersourcesshouldbeprioritized.CollectingandutilizingyourrainwaterisasoldasTexashistoryandshouldbeanimportantconsiderationinfutureoptionstoincludeinthewatersupplyportfolio.Commercial—TheCityofAustinshouldconsiderprovidingincentiveprogramsandretrofitprogramstocapturelarge-scaleinstitutionalrainwatercatchmentsystems.Thisapproachcanfacilitatedecentralizationstrategiesandprovideabalancedapproachtomanagingtheutilitiesinfrastructure.Residential—TheCityofAustinshouldcontinuetofundandexpandresidentialopportunitiesforrainwaterharvestingtooffsetpeaksummerloaddemands.Incentiveandrebateprogramsshouldbediversifiedtomeetawiderangeofuserneedsandpromoteconservationandwaterefficiency.ASR-Regional/Desalination(RegionalNon-EdwardsAquifer)—CityofAustinshoulddevelopandparticipateinlarge-scaleregionalASRsystemwithpartnerssuchasLCRA,CitiesincludingPflugerville,RoundRock,Buda,Kyle,andotherstodevelopadroughtproofregionalwatersupplystorageandwithdrawalsystemtoaugmentexistingsuppliesusingacombinationofsourcessuchasgroundwater,desalinatedsupplies,andreusesources.Page9of9 Appendix0Definitions-WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteria Definitions-WaterSupplyProjectEvaluationCriteriaWaterSupplyBenefit1.SupplyVolume-Doestheproposedwatersupplystrategyprovideasignificantvolume?Howhighisourconfidenceinthereliabilityofthewatersupply(appliestostrategiesthataresavingsorsupplybased)?2.DroughtResilience-Doestheamountofwatersupplyfromwatersupplystrategychangebasedondroughtcondition(isit“droughtproof”)?3.Improvedreliabilityandutilizationofexistingsupplies-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyextendexistingsuppliessothatwecanservemorepeopleforlongerwiththesameamount?DoestheproposedwatersupplystrategymaintainnecessarydownstreamsuppliessuchthatHighlandLakesstorageisextended?4.Qualitycompatibilitywithexistingdistributionsystems-Wouldexistinginfrastructureortreatmentprogramneedtobemodifiedtoaddresswaterqualityconcernsfromanewsource?5.LocalControl(resilience&risk)-DoestheproposedwatersupplystrategysecuresupplyfromalocalwatersourceunderthecontroloftheAustincommunity?IstheproposedwatersupplystrategyassociatedwithpotentialriskforfutureaccessibilityifnotunderlocalcontroloftheAustincommunity?6.Diversification—DoesthewatersupplystrategydiversifyAustin’scurrentwatersupplyportfolio?EconomicImpacts1.AnnualCost-Annualcosttoimplementstrategy(shouldincludeallconstruction,treatment,distributionandsystemupsizingcostsonthewaterandwastewaterside,unlessotherwisenoted).Ahigherannualcostisassumedtohaveahighereffecttoratepayers.2.TreatmentNeed/Cost-Doescostofproposedwatersupplystrategyincludetreatment?Ifnot,whatistreatmentcost(ifknown)?3.EnergyIntensity-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyhavealargerenergyassociatedwithproduction,treatmentandtransportthancurrentAustinWatersupplies?4.EnergyGeneration-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyhaveanopportunityforenergygeneration/offset?EnvironmentalImpacts1.ImpactsonotherWaterSupplies-Doestheproposedwatersupplystrategyhavepotentialforwaterqualityorquantityimpactsofanothersource/supply?2.InstreamFlow-DoesthewatersupplystrategydecreaseinstreamflowsintheColoradoRiverorothercontributingstreams?3.Endangered/ThreatenedSpeciesimpact-Doeswatersupplystrategynegativelyimpactspecieshabitat(terrestrialoraquatic)orenvironmentalflowsforanaquaticspecies?4.Wetlands-Doeswatersupplystrategyimpactsizeorproductivityofexistingwetlands?5.WaterQuality-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategynegativelyimpactwaterqualityinanyway?DoesproposedwatersupplystrategyenabledevelopmentontheBartonSprings/EdwardsAquifercontributingorrechargezones? SocialImpacts1.ImagineAustinPlan-DoesproposedwatersupplystrategyconformtoImagineAustingoals?InparticularIAPlanGoal2:SustainablyManageourWaterResources.Pages191-192.http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/ImagineAustin/webiacpreduced.pdf2.BalanceEconomicandEnvironmentalImpactswithCommunityInterests-DoesproposedwatersupplystrategyreflectAustin’scommunityvaluesandqualityoflifegoals?3.Recreation-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyimpactwater-basedrecreationactivities?(Ex.kayaking/SUP/fishingandotherrecreationactivitiesonLadyBirdLake,ColoradoRiverPaddlingTrailinBastrop)Implementability1.RequiredExternalAdoption-Arenecessaryentitiescoordinatingonproposedwatersupplystrategy?IsthereanMOUrequired/present?DoesAustincurrentlypossesthewaterrightsorcontractforproposedwatersupplystrategy?IfnotAustin,doessupplyingentity/individualhaveclearaccesstowater?DoesAustinneedtogetanypermits?TCEQ,COE,etc?2.LandAcquisition—Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyrequirelandacquisition?3.TimingofImplementation-Howfastcanproposedwatersupplystrategybeputonline/implemented?4.RegulatoryApproval-Doesproposedwatersupplystrategyrequireanyregulatoryapproval?Isitroutine(i.e.quick)processormoreinvolved?5.PoliticalOpposition-Istherepoliticaloppositiontotheproposedwatersupplystrategy(localand/orinwatersourcearea)6.PublicAcceptance-Doespublic“embrace”proposedwatersupplystrategy.Willtherebeanissuewithpublicacceptance?Ifwatersupplystrategywasimplemented,wouldsurroundingcommunitiesobject?7.LegalUncertainties—Aretherelegaluncertaintiesassociatedwithwatersupplystrategy?Willtheseissuesaffectyieldoraccessibilitytowater?RiskofAlternativeSupplies1.DependenceonClimaticConditions-Isthepredictedsupplyyieldoftheproposedwaterstrategyaffectedbyclimateconditions?Isvariabilityofyieldexpectedwithachangeinclimateconditions?3.Hydrologicstorageriskforpotentialenvironmentalrelease-IsthesupplyyieldoftheproposedwatersupplystrategylikelytoresultinoverallnosignificantnetgaininHighlandLakestorageduetocurrentLCRAWMPoperations? AppendixERecommendedScoringSystem—COADroughtResponseDecisionMatrix RecommendedScoringSystemforCOADroughtResponseDecisionMatrix-Example,RequiresCompletionSupplyVolumeAnnualCostTreatmentNeed/CostEnergyIntensityEnergyGenerationImpactsonotherWaterSuppliesInstreamFlowEndangered/ThreatenedSpeciesImpact________________Wetland5WaterQualityImagineAustinPlanSalanceseconomic&environmentalimpactsw/comrnunityinterests-RecreationRequiredExternalAdoptionLandAcquisitionTimingofImplementation_________________RegulatoryApprovalPoliticalOpposition_____________________________LegalUncertaintiesPublicAcceptanceDependenceonClimaticConditionsScoringSystemcategoryISub-Category-2-10[2Minimal(<_AF)Moderate(_AF<a<AF)Significant(>AF)GreatlyreducedreliabilityNotablereducedreliabilitySlightlyreducedreliability100%reliabiliitythroughDroughtResilienceNeutralduringdroughtduringdroughtduringdroughtdroughtWSPextendsexistingsuppliesWSPsignificantlyextendsWSPdoesnotimproveCriteria1:WaterSupplyImprovedreliabilityandutilizationofexistingWSPextendsexistingsuppliesWSPextendsexistingsuppliestoservemorepeopleandexistingsuppliestoserveBenefitsuppliesreliabilityandutilizatIOnoftoservemorepeopletoservemorepeopleprotectsHighlandLakesmorepeopleandprotectsexistingsuppliessupplyHighlandLakessupplyQualitycompatibilitywithenistingdistributionsystemsLocalControlIResilienceandRisklDiversificationCriteria2:EconomicImpactCriteria3:EnvironmentalImpactsCriteria4:SocialImpactsCriteria5:lmplementabilityCriteria6:RiskofAlternativeSuppliesHydrologicstorageriskforpotentialenvironmentalreleasezF-TobeCompleted AppendixFModelingDroughtResponseStrategiesRichardHoffpauir,PhD.,P.E.—June25,2014 ModelingDroughtResponseStrategiesAustinWaterResourcesPlanningTaskForceJune25,2014RichardHoffpauir,Ph.D.,RE. DroughtResponseStrategies•DroughtresponsestrategiesweremodeledforthepurposesofexemplifyingsimulatednetbenefitsonstorageinlakesBuchananandTravisunderrepeateddroughtconditions.•Simulatingseveralgroupingsor“tiers”canuncoverstrategysynergiesorinterferences.•ThetieredstrategymodelsinthishandoutarebasedontaskforcerequestfromtheJune19,2014AWRPTFmeeting.Thetieredstrategygroupingsarenotnecessarilyreflectiveoffinaltaskforcerecommendations. AssumptionsforAustinDCPImplementationProjectedDiversionsinThousandAcre-Feet(TAF)-RoundedtoNearest0.5TAFAssumption:ModeledStageHighlandLakesCombined201420152016201720182019Storage_Level_Trigger_(AF)ConservationFullto1.4MAF155.0158.0159.5161.0162.5164.0StageStage11.4MAFto900,000150.5153.5155.0156.0157.5159.0Stage2900,000to600,000142.0144.5145.5147.0148.5149.5Stage3600,000to500,000124.5125.5127.0128.5129.5131.0lnterim*500,000to400,000109.0110.0111.0112.0113.0114.5Stage4400,000andbelow99.5100.5101.0102.5103.5104.5*Includesconceptual“Interim”stage-potentiallyincludeshand-wateringonlyincludesestimatedreductionsofindoorusecorrelatingtocommunityresponsetodroughtseverityNote:1acre-foot(AF)=325,851gallons*Asof5/2014,estimatessubjecttochange Tier1StrategiesKeyModelingModelStrategyDescriptionAssumptionImplementationOperatingrangeofLakeWalterE.Top3,700acre-feetoflakeStartofsimulation,Longadjustedtoallowforapprox.capacityisfilledwithlocalandJune20143’ofdrawdownbeforecallingforrun-of-riverwateronly.LCRAstoredwaterLonghornDamgate6,000acre-feetperyear(afy)June2014improvementstoincreaseofimprovedreleaseefficiencyefficiencyofdownstreamreleasesIncreasedAustinmunicipalconservation,beyondsavingsdueDemands(previouspage)areJanuary2015todroughtcontingencystagereducedby5%inallstagesimplementationIncreaseAustinmunicipaldirect1,800afyinallDCPstagesJanuary2020reuse,“CompletingtheCore”IncorporatedintoallthreetierstrategiesisimplementationoftheDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage.ThekeymodelingassumptioncolumnforallthreetierstrategiesisnotnecessarilyreflectiveoftheannualHighlandLakesstoragesavings.TheHighlandLakesstoragesavingscollectivelyfromallstrategiesareshowngraphicallyinthemodelingresults. Tier2Strategies.KeyModelingModelStrategyDescriptionAssumptionImplementationCapturelocalinflowsinLadyBirdLake,includingfromBartonSpringsandDeepEddy.“Excessflow”isdivertedonLadyBirdVariableamountofexcessLake.Excessflowissimulatedaswaterisflowisdivertedpermonth,...January2016notrequiredforpassagetodownstreamdependingonhydrologicseniorwaterrightsandnotneededtomeetconditionsdownstreamLCRAenvironmentalflowrequirements.LakeAustinOperationsOperateLakeAustinwithina3’rangetoallowlocalflowstobecapturedratherthan“spilled”SeptemberthroughMaydownstream.DroughtresponseemergencyTop3’ofLakeAustinisusedoperationalapproachwouldbetoletlocalforcapturinglocalexcessonlyafterBuchananandusagedrawthelakeleveldownafewfeettobeflow,approx.4,500acre-Traviscombinedstorageabletocatchrunofffromlocalstormeventsfeetoflakecapacity.fallsbelow600,000shouldtheyoccur.LakeAustinoperationsareacre-feetmodeledonlyinthemonthsofSeptemberthroughMaywhenthecombinedstorageoftheHighlandLakesfallsbelow600,000acre-feet.IncorporatedintoallthreetierstrategiesisimplementationoftheDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage. WalterLongOff-ChannelStorage(EnhancedCapacity)AssumesDeckerpowerplantisofflinewhenthisstrategyisineffect.DuringthesimulationperiodLCRAstoredwaterisnotcalledformaintainingstoragecontentsinLakeLongwhilethepowerplantisoffline.DeckerCreekinflows,ColoradoRiver“excessflows”,andreclaimedwaterarestoredinLakeLong.ReleasesofstoredwateraremadetoDeckerCreektomeetdownbasindemandsandtomeetLCRAinstreamflowandbay&estuaryinflowrequirements.IndirectPotableReuse—SARtoLadyBirdLakeIndirectreusethroughLadyBirdLakeforaugmentingpotablewatersupply.Indirectreusesimulatedasaconstantmonthlyamount.ReleasesofstoredwaterfromLakeLongaremadetooffsetdecreasedreturnflowdischargeabovetheBastropgage.BothTier3strategiesaresimulatedanytimeafterJanuary1,2016whenBuchananandTraviscombinedstoragefallsbelow420,000acre-feet.Tier3strategiesceaseifcombinedstoragerecoversto650,000acre-feet.WithregardtotheDeckerstrategy,nodecisionshavebeenmaderegardingactualfutureoperationsofDeckerpowerplant.Tier3StrategiesKeyModelingModelStrategyDescriptionAssumptionImplementationTop25’ofLakeLongisusedforreleasingtoDeckerCreek,approx.23,400acre-feetoflakecapacity.20Mgd,approx.22,400afyIncorporatedintoallthreetierstrategiesisimplementationoftheDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage. BaselineModelingAssumptions•CombinedStorageinitializedto787,000acre-feet,asobservedonJune1,2014•AllsimulationsbeginJune1,2014andendJanuary1,2024•Dry/referenceyeardemandswhennotsimulatingcurtailmentduetolakecombinedstoragebelow600,000acre-feet,i.e.,pro-ratacurtailmentduetoadeclarationofadroughtworsethanthedroughtofrecord(DWDR)byLCRA•Austinmunicipaldemandgrowth•AustinmunicipaldemandsreducedaccordingtoAustin’sDCPstages•Otherfirmcustomerdemandsreducedinitiallyby20%underDWDR.Reductionby30%below500,000acre-feetofcombinedstorage.•InterruptiblestoredwatercutoffunderDWDR•LCRAWMPEmergencyOrderforcutoffofinterruptiblestoredwaterifDWDRnotineffect•LCRAtemporaryamendmentsforadditionaldiversionpointsofLCRArun-ofriverrightsbelowtheHighlandLakes•LCRAEmergencyOrdertoreducethespringinstreamflowrequirementbetweenBastropandColumbusfrom500to300cfsfor6-consecutiveweeks•CorpusChristirun-of-riverdiversionof35,000afybegins,July2015 BaselineModelingAssumptions(continued)•LatestColoradoRiverBasinhydrologydatasetfromTCEQisused.Thehydrologydatasetincludesallyearsofthecurrentdroughtexceptfor2014.•Thepercentreductionsofthe2011-2013hydrologyrepeatsadjustsstreamflowsatallgagesinthebasinbythestatedpercentage.•LCRA’sgroundwatersupplyinBastropcountyissimulatedasasourceformeetingpowerplantdemandsonLakeBastrop.LCRAgroundwaterissimulatedas5,000afy,andincreasedto10,000afyifdroughtconditionsexistinBastropcountyonJanuary1ofeachyear.•LCRAinstreamflowandbay&estuaryfreshwaterinflowrequirementsarereducedinthesimulationby20%and30%whencombinedstoragefallsbelow600,000and500,000acre-feet,respectively.•TheBaselineandStrategyTiersimulationsdonotcontaintheLCRALowerBasinReservoirProject(LBRP).Thereservoirisexpectedtobeoperationalin2017andwillbelocatedupstreamofBayCity. SimulationHydrology•Thebaselineandstrategytiersweresimulatedwithtwohydrologicconditionsrepeatingfor9fullyears.Thefollowingsequencesbeginwith2015:•2011-2013streamflowrepeating•70%of2011-2013streamflowrepeating•HydrologyforJune-December2014issimulatedbyrepeatingthehydrologyofJune-December2013.The70%streamflowreductionisalsoapplied. SimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisBaselineSimulationwithJune1,2014StartIncorporatedintotheBaselineresultshownhere,andallthreetierstrategies,isimplementationoftheAustinDCPstagesincludingtheconceptual“interim”stage.2,100,0001,800,0001,500,000aJLI1,200,00004-ILI,900,000-C-oE0L)600,000300,0000(ioj ResultsforSimulationswithRepeatof2011-2013StreamFlow(11) SimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorage900,000800,000700,0004-Ia)600,000a)1U500,000oj0400,000300,000E0200,000100,0000(12)ryN’N’N’r.4N’N’rN’N’r4 TimeSpentatVariousCombinedStorageLevelsBaselineTier1Tier2Tier3StorageNumberofMonthsAtorAbv.600k32495255500-599k45474847400-499k31151614Blw.400k8500116116116116StoragePercentofTotalMonthsAtorAbv.600k28%42%45%47%500-599k39%41%41%41%400-499k27%13%14%12%BIw.400k7%4%0%0%100%100%100%100%(13] DifferencefromBaselineinSimulatedCombinedStorageoflakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorage100,00090,00080,000a)LI70,000a)60,00004-’If.,50,000-DE40,0008C30,000a)a)20,00010,0000(14)N>-->->->t-yN ResultsforSimulationswith70%Repeatof2011-2013StreamFlow(15) SimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorageAWRPTFTierStrategySet900,000800,000700,000•1-’ww600,0009-wIU500,00004-,400,000-DC300,000200,000100,0000(16)>..-c7,‘.4‘.‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.-yr.4‘y‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.4‘.1‘.4 TimeSpentatVariousCombinedStorageLevelsAWRPTFTierStrategySetBaselineTierlTier2Tier3StorageNumberofMonthsAtorAbv.600k13131313500-599k7899400-499k13172027BIw.400k83787467116116116116StoragePercentofTotalMonthsAtorAbv.600k11%11%11%11%500-599k6%7%8%8%400-499k11%15%17%23%BIw.400k72%67%64%58%100%100%100%100%(17) DifferencefromBaselineinSimulatedCombinedStorageofLakesBuchananandTravisSimulationsStartwithJune1,2014787,000ac-ftofCombinedStorageAWRPTFTierStrategySet200,000175,000150,0004-’125,0001;100,00075,00050,000CQiC)25,0000(18)-c7,>•-q’-N-,7YN>1 Observations•Asstrategiesincreasecombinedstorage,firmdemandsandenvironmentalflowrequirementscanincrease.Thebenefitofthestrategycanbemeasuredin:•absolutegainincombinedstorage,and•thenumberofmonthsspentatlevels:•abovethetriggerforpro-ratareductionsandimplementingAustin’sDCPstages,and•athigherlevelsofenvironmentalflowmaintenance•The70%streamflowscenarioresultsincombinedstoragebelow500,000acre-feetformostofthesimulation.Includesassumptionpro-ratacurtailmentreducesinstreamflowandbay&estuaryinflowrequirementsby30%attheselevels.(19) Observations(Continued)•Inthemodel,excessflowcaptureonLakeAustin,LadyBirdLake,andattheriverpumpstationforLakeLongincreasesasthecombinedstorageintheHighlandLakesfallsandfirmcustomerdemandsandenvironmentalflowrequirementsarecurtailed.•Inthemodel,excessflowcaptureonLakeAustin,LadyBirdLake,andindirectpotablereusethroughLadyBirdLakeworksynergisticallywithoperationofLakeLongasanexcessflowstorageandreleasefacility.ReleasesfromLakeLongincreasethenumberofmonthswhenupstreamflowscanbecountedasexcess.Likewise,LakeLongreleasesoffsetthedecreaseinreturnflowsbelowLonghornDamduetoindirectpotablereuse.(20) OtherConsiderations•Certainassumptionsweremadeinthemodelingregardingwaterrightpermittingandpriorityorderconsiderationofstreamflows.ModifyingoperationsofexistingwaterrightsmayrequireapplicationforawaterrightamendmentatTCEQ.(21) AppendixGLakeAustinDrawdownSummaryCityofAustin—WatershedProtectionDepartment LakeAustinDrawdownSummaryPreparedbyChrisHerrington,PE,CityofAustinWatershedProtectionDepartmentChris.Herrinpton@AustinTexas.Gov,(512)974-284005/16/2014,revised06/20/2014OnepotentialalternativewatersupplyaugmentationevaluatedbytheAustinWaterUtility(http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/FinaISupply-SidePresentationAWRPTF5-19-14.pdf)involvesseasonallyvaryingtheoperatinglevelsofLakeAustintoallowcaptureoflocalflowsratherthanpassingthoseinflowsdownstreamintheColoradoRiver.Watersurfaceelevationmaybedecreasedupto3feetfromthecrestofthedamunderthispotentialstrategy.ThenormalwatersurfaceelevationofLakeAustinis492.8ftabovemeansealevel.TheTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(TWDB)occasionallyconductsbathymetricstudiesofLakeAustin.TWDByear2009lakedepthinformationwasusedtovisuallyapproximatethedifferenceina3footdrawdownofwatersurfaceelevationsatselectedlocationsonLakeAustinfordemonstrationpurposes.Pleasenotethatthelakebathymetrylayerdoesnotexactlyalignwiththeunderlyingaerialimageryshown,andtheTWDBusesa5footcontourintervalsuchthatthedifferingelevationsareonlygeneralizedapproximations. NormalShoreline3footDrawdownL.Figure1.DownstreamLakeAustinnearTomMillerDamshowingapproximatelocationofnormalwatersurfaceelevation(492.8ftmsl)(yellow)anda3footdrawdown(red)proposedforwatersupplyaugmentation. Figure2.LakeAustinmid-reachnearLoop360bridgeandBullCreekCoveshowingapproximatelocationofnormalwatersurfaceelevation(492.8ftmsl)(yellow)anda3footdrawdown(red)proposedforwatersupplyaugmentation.NormalShoreline3footDrawdownd. Figure3.LakeAustinuppermid-reachnearEmmaLongMetropolitanParkshowingapproximatelocationofnormalwatersurfaceelevation(492.8ftmsl)(yellow)anda3footdrawdown(red)proposedforwatersupplyaugmentation.NormalShoreline3footDrawdownL.v.A‘I‘320480640L. AppendixHWaterUseModelingRequestwithRevisedPopulationEstimatesCityofAustin—AustinWaterUtility WaterUseModelingRequestwithRevisedPopulationEstimatesDisaggregatedWaterUseCategoriesResidentialIndoor:FY11:10,842,075,705(54%ofclass)FY13:11,279,989,930(70%ofclass)ResidentialOutdoor:FY11:9,238,288,595(46%ofclass)FY13:4,776,815,370(30%ofclass)MultifamilyIndoor:FY11:7,582,167,600(80%ofclass)FY13:7,139,734,800(79%ofclass)MultifamilyOutdoor:FY11:1,895,844,800(20%ofclass)FY13:1,860,760,400(21%ofclass)CommercialIndoor:FY11:6,691,880,400(53%ofclass)FY137,153,964,400(67%ofclass)CommercialOutdoor:FY11:5,830,801,400(47%ofclass)FY13:3,591,125,510(33%ofclass)WholesaleIndoor:FY11:2,227,506,000(63%ofclass)FY13:2,197,483,200(74%ofclass)WholesaleOutdoor:FY11:1,286,937,400(37%ofclass)FY13:756,792,728(26%ofclass)*NotesTheresidentialclassincludesduplexes,triplexesandfourplexes.TheMultifamilyclassincludesfiveplexesandhigher.Theindoor/outdoorsplitsarebasedonvariedassumptionsamongdifferentuserclasses.Allindoor/outdoorsplitsarebasedonbilledconsumptionoftheindividualclasses. LargeVolumeUse:FY11:Samsung-1,212,413,000Freescale—651,613,700UniversityofTexas—547,009,600Spansion—419,899,000Hospira—114,565,000Novati—69,790,000Total—3,015,290,300(Totaldoesnotincludeanadditional599,992,400gallonsofUniversityofTexasCommercialclassconsumption)FY13:Samsung-1,436,772,000Freescale—644,751,000UniversityofTexas—464,694,200Spansion—389,113,000Hospira—83,756,000Novati—64,112,000Total—3,083,198,200(Totaldoesnotincludeanadditional384,509,800gallonsofUniversityofTexasCommercialclassconsumption)SystemUseandLosses:SeeattachedWaterLossSummary UseFactorsNumberofconnectionsResidential—193,278Multi-family—5,692Commercial—16,906Industrial(LargeVolume)—28Wholesale-51Totalconnections—215,955(Source:TWDBAnnualWaterConservationReportforWaterSuppliersfortheCityofAustinFY13)PersonsperconnectionFY13ResidentialServiceAreaPopulation(projected)—523,798FY13Multi-familyServiceAreaPopulation(projected)—350,608FY13WholesaleServiceAreaPopulation(projected)—53,620FY13TotalServiceAreaPopulation(Residential+Multifamily÷Wholesaleprojected)—928,026(SourceforServiceAreaPopulation:UtilityBillingDataset)AverageHouseholdSize—2.49AverageFamilySize—3.27(Sourcefordemographicdata:AmericanCommunitySurveyProfileReport2012forAustin)PerCapitaIncomePerCapitaIncome-$31,130MedianHouseholdIncome-$52,453MeanHouseholdIncome-$76,287(Sourceforincomedata:AmericanCommunitySurveyProfileReport2012forAustin)RainwaterHarvestingDateRangeSystemParticipantsCapacity2010-2014Over500Gallons303799,909Under5002010-2014Gallons929140,9762003-2010RainBarrel3,170401,490Totals4,4021,342,375(Source:WCTSquery) GraywaterReuse2gravitysystems(Source:AuxiliaryWaterPermitSearchCY12-CY14)4systemsofunknowntype(Source:Informalstaffdiscussions)Weather:MaximumTemperature—1994—104,07-251995—103,07-281996—102,06-201997—100,08-091998—108,06-141999—106,07-202000—112,08-052001—105,07-182002—102,07-262003—110,07-082004—101,07-052005—107,08-252006—104,07-242007—100,07-132008—105,07-142009—106,06-262010—107,08-242011—112,08-282012—109,06-262013—108,06-29MeanMonthlyMaxTemp1994—80.11995—78.81996—80.11997—76.41998—80.51999—82.12000—80.62001—78.82002—78.92003—79.9 2004—78.92005—80.82006—82.92007—78.82008—82.92009—81.82010—79.52011—84.02012—82.62013—81.3Precipitation(Calendaryear/inches)-1994—41.161995—33.981996—29.561997—46.791998—39.121999—23.932000—37.272001—42.872002—36.002003—21.412004—52.272005—22.332006—34.72007—46.952008—16.072009—31.382010—37.762011—19.682012—32.982013—41.03(Sourceforweatherdata:NOAA,MabrySite) AWuWaterLossCalculationFY11FY12FY13WATERUTILITYGENERALINFORMATIONWaterUtilityNameAustinWaterUtilityAuatinWaterUtilityAustinWaterUtilityOctaberl,2OtOtaOctaberl2011taOctaberl,2012September30September30toSeptember30ReportingPeriod201120122013RetailPopulationU55,69t855,U69874406SYSTEMINPUTVOLUMEWate’VnlumetmmownSaarcea52,834,738,00047,t37,782,00045,927,345,000gals243,014,931mGPruductonMeterAccuracy(%(9800%9800%tUUl%potCorrectedSystemlnpLtVolume53,912,997,95948,099,777,55146,864,637,755gals247,974,419388WhnlessleImportVnlumesU71,845,008Ut,098,000tSt,t43,080TotalSystemInputVolumeS39t29t7,9S948,t71,622,SSt46,952,735,75524t,t34,362,3t0AUTHOWOCONSUMPTIONBilledMeteredUt11%48,t65,3t3,3008934%43,970,260,0879128%41,793,546,1388900%gala221,481,472325tilledUrmetemd070%tU7,t97,505035%3,310,877001%4,265,t2t001%galaN3t70462t1222,t32,176,945UnbilledMetered(amountusedatAWUnuildngs/tacil’ties)020%70,478,8000t3%55,604,700012%36,241,600012%gals342911660UnbiliedUnmetered(amountusedbyothercityOenartnienls043%94,727,346018%73,059,t20O1S%69,148,969012%gals563024394906,755,994TntalAuthanoedConsumptiont944%40,Slt,216,9518999%44,102,315,4049153%41,923,202,5358926%gals223,038,932939223,Ott,t32,93tWaterLtsses(Systeminputunlumeminusauthansedcnasumptian(1056%S,394,5ti,00t1001%4,069,307,067845%5,029,533,2281071%galsTotalApparentLouses226%1,062,369,523197%1,063,431,734221%1,006,723,469214%gals5,393,388,660TotalRealLosses831%4,332,211,485t04%3,005,875,333624%4,022,009,751857%gals19,742,040,78025,905,429,448UnavoidableRealLosses,inMGI324%3,9U2,260270%4,007,127304%4,054,298315%MGI1i*iàààftñisi1saä?R%iciIlossvaleme(divby365jdividedbyunavodable________________________________________________RetailPnceotWater$412$440$453Costpsr8,000galCostofApparentLosses$4,376,962$4,667,768$4,560,457VanableProducbnnCostotWater*$033$039$041Costper1,060galCostofRealLosses$1,429,630$1,173,296$1,662,145TotalCostImpactofApparentandRealLosses$5,806,592$5,841,663$6,222,602SAVINGSFROMREDUCINGILlFROMFYUULEVELRealWateFLossatFY08ILl4,742,031,9654,771,643,31t4,827,814,033CUmUlativesavingsActaalrealmaterloss4,332,211,4U53,005,875,3334,622,809,751SaVngsingal409,828,4881,765,767,985ets,0t4,2t2####It#######galSaVngslnAF1,257.695418.9429692,47t9,836AFSavngsin$$135,240.76$688,649.51$33t,t51.76llUllllUOtlltllUUllTWDBreliabilityassessmentscore696967.55yearsuersgeWsserlosslPCl1727130315761617wstrlosspercentagewithoutwholesaleSysarsvnrsge‘1loss1011% AppendixIAustinWaterNeedsEstimatesLaurenRoss,PhD.,P.E. Appendix:AustinWaterNeedsEstimatesTheAustinWaterResourcesTaskForceundertookanefforttoestimateAustin’swaterneedsbasedonavailablehistoricalwateruse,population,andlandusedata.OurvolunteereffortsfallshortofthedetailedwaterneedsmodelthatwouldbepartoftherecommendedIntegratedWaterPlan.Despitetheirlackofdetail,however,ourmethodsandresultsprovideusefulinformationregardingAustin’shistoricalwateruseindisaggregatedcategoriesandwheretherearepotentialfordemandreductions.Theyarealsoillustrativeoftheusefulnessofsuchananalysisandforthatreasonweareincludingtheminthisappendix.InformationSourcesWaterneedsresultspresentedinthisappendixarebasedoninformationfromthefollowingthreesources.AustinWaterUtilityDataTheAustinWaterUtilityprovidedwateruseinformationindisaggregatedcategoriesforresidential[single-family),multifamily,commercial,wholesaleandAustin’ssixlargestcustomers:Samsung,Freescale,UniversityofTexas,Spansion,Hospira,andNovati.Datawasprovidedforfiscalyears2011and2013.EachfiscalyearbeginsonOctober1andextendsthroughSeptember30.Thisdataisincludedintheprecedingappendix.Waterconsumptiondataforresidential,multifamily,commercialandwholesaleusesweredisaggregatedintooutdoorandindooruses.Thisdisaggregationisbasedonwaterusedifferencesbetweenlow(winter)monthsandothermonthswhenlandscapeirrigationismorecommon.Thisdisaggregationprocessproducesinaccurateestimates.Utilitycustomerirrigationmetersshowsomeirrigationoccursineverymonth.Thisinformationis,however,thecurrentlybestavailableandwasusedinthisanalysis.’AustinWaterUtilityalsoprovidedinformationregardingthenumberofpeopleservedinthreeofitscustomerclasses.ThisinformationispresentedinTable1.1Basedonconversationswithwaterutilitystaff. Table1AustinWaterUtilityCustomerPopulationFiscalYearFiscalYearCustomerClass20112013Single-Family503,463523,798Multi-Family336,996350,608Wholesale51,53853,620Total891,997928,026AustinGeographicalInformationSystemDataTheCityofAustinmakesGISdataavailabletothepublic.GISdataincludeinformationontheWaterUtilityservicearea,onlanduse,andonimperviousarea:buildingsandtransportation.TheseGISdatawereusedtocalculateperviousandimperviousareasbylanduseclasswithintheutilityservicearea.Table1summarizesthesedata.Table2.LandUsewithinAustinWaterUtilityServiceAreaPerviousBuildingTransportationTotalAreaLandUse(acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)Single-Family49,7419,68969060,119Multi-Family6,1871,9802,00010,167Commercial5,2891,3743,2459,908Industrial8,9471,3242,54912,820Civic8,5229981,43410,954Other227,0881,80919,334248,232Totalarea305,77317,17429,253352,200Figure1showsthelandusewithintheAustinWaterUtilityboundary.Figure2isamapshowingimperviousareasurroundingtheWallerCreekCenterat625East10thStreet.Thesizeofperviousareasforlandusesassociatedwitheachcustomerclasswereusedtocalculateoutdoorwaterdemands.EvapotranspirationDataTheTexasAgriLifeExtensionService2maintainspotentialevapotranspirationdatabasedonweatherstationsaroundthestate.Thesedataareusedtoestimateirrigationdemandsforawiderangeofvegetation,includingturfandlandscapeplants.Theperiodsofrecord2http://texaset.tamu.edu/. UondUseKey——.lobiiehome—LargelotsnrgIefamiIy———InduStrlI—cLan—Openspoon———UndewIspndruralW..®E25510Figure1.LandUsewithinCityofAustinWaterUtilityWaterandWastewaterFeeBoundaryJune14.2014 ImperviousAreasImperviousTransportationAreasImperviousBuildingAreasFigure2.ImperviousAreasUsedtoIdentifyNetAreaforLandscapeIrrigationJune14,2014 IndoorWaterUseforEfficientandMaintainedResidentialPlumbingInformationwasobtainedfromfivedifferentsourcesregardingthedailywateruseforhouseholdsusingefficientandwell-maintainedresidentialplumbing.Dailywaterusevaluesrangedfrom36.5to52.6gallonsperpersonperday.DatafromthesesourcesischartedinFigure4.forpotentialevapotranspirationstationsacrossTexasarevaried.AtimeseriesofdailypotentialevapotranspirationwascompiledfromfourCentralTexasStations:Georgetown;Austin;AustinMorrison;andSanAntonioNorth.Fordayswithoutdatafromanyofthesestations,potentialevapotranspirationdatawascalculatedusingtheHargreavesequation.Irrigationdemandswerecalculatedusingawarmseasonturffactor(0.6]andahighstressqualityfactor(0.4).Figure3showsestimatedannuallandscapewaterdemandsforeachyearfrom2008through2013,alongwiththetotalrainfallamountsineachyear.Figure3.EstimatedAnnualLandscapeWaterDemand37403530250)20WaterDemand—Rain15105341,8001,6001,4001,2001,00035281,5521427(0a)I..UCoLI,0(0LI,a)0)za)0.(0U(I,CCo-J0)toIa)>800600-400200200820092010201120124822013 Figure4.IndoorWaterUseEstimatesforEfficientandMaintainedPlumbing60>.3::c100r0EastBayofMunicipalUtilityDistrict,CaliforniaAnalysisTheinformationdescribedabovewasusedtocalculateindoorandoutdoorwateruseperpersonperdayforresidential,multi-family,andwholesalecustomers.Anestimatedneedwasalsocalculatedforindoorresidentialusebasedon45gallonsperpersonperday.Thisvalueislowerthanhistoricaluse,butwellwithintherangeofachievableindoorwaterefficiencies.Figure5compareshistoricaldailyuseinfiscalyears2011and2013,intermsofgallonsperpersonperday,totheestimatedindoorneed.Thischartshowsthatwateruseforallresidentialcustomerclassesexceedsthestandardforefficientindoorplumbing.Theestimatedneedforoutdoorwaterusewasbasedon400gallonsperacreperdayforperviousareasineachofthecorrespondinglanduseclasses.Thisvalueisapproximatelyone-thirdofaveragelandscapeirrigationdemandvaluesforyears2008through2012shownonFigure3.Theyear2013waswetterthanusualandoutdoordemandswerecorrespondinglower.AmericanWaterWorksAssociationUtahDivisionWaterResourcesAquacraft,Sustainablelnc.caseFocusforstudy,p.37Adelaide,AustraliaModelValue Figure5.HistoricUseandEstimatedNeedforIndoorResidentialWater•FiscalYear2011(gallons/person/day)•FiscalYear2013_______________(gallons/person/day)•ModelAssumptions(gallons/person/day)—1—--_______________—---—--——-ResidentialIndoorMultifamilyIndoorWholesaleIndoor140120-100I‘I595945Outdoorwaterdemandforeachcustomerclasswascalculatedbymultiplying400gallonsperacreperdaybythenumberofperviousacresinlanduseareasassociatedwiththatcustomerclassinTable2.Waterdemandinfiscalyears2011and2013arecomparedtotheestimatedwaterneedinTable3andinFigure6.Thedatashowthatwaterdemandsinfiscalyear2013were12,630acre-feethigherthanthiscalculationoftheneededwateramount,includingsomelandscapeirrigation.Mostofthiswatersavingswouldbeachievedbyreducingresidentialandmulti-familyindoorwateruse. Table3.AComparisonofFiscalYears2011and2013WaterDemandwithanEstimatedWaterNeedbyCustomerClassClassFiscalYear2011FiscalYear2013EstimatedNeedResidentialIndoor33,27534,61926,405ResidentialOutdoor28,35314,66122,288MultifamilyIndoor23,27021,91317,674MultifamilyOutdoor5,8195,7112,772CommercialIndoor20,53821,956CommercialOutdoor17,89511,0226,379WholesaleIndoor6,8366,7442,703WholesaleOutdoor3,9502,3232,323SixLargeCustomers9,2549,463CivicOutdoor-3,819TotalCustomerDemand149,191128,411115,78140,000Figure6.Austin’sHistoricalWaterUseandEstimatedNeedbyCustomerClassLi0anU,IJSci:35,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000-liii’-IIIF”I.JEh2iJ•FiscalYear2011•FiscalYear2013•EstimatedNeed‘e\oo’_o0—‘-
Agenda — original pdf
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting by calling (512) 322-6450. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JUNE 23, 2014 2:30 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL – ROOM 1029 (STAFF BULLPEN) 301 W. SECOND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 MEMBERS:Michael Osborne, Chair Barry Dreyling, Vice Chair Clay Butler Carol Biedrzycki Grace Hsieh Cyrus Reed Mike Sloan Tom “Smitty” Smith Michele Van Hyfte For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/austin-generation-resource-planning-task-force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – June 23, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the June 18, 2014 meeting CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion regarding the report format, content and timing 3. Discussion and possible action on recommendations included in the report FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 4. Discussion regarding future agenda items including issues raised during Citizen Communications ADJOURNMENT
Approved Minutes — original pdf
Page 1 of 1 The Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force (‘the Task Force’) convened in a meeting at Austin City Hall, Room 1029, 301 West Second Street, Austin, Texas. CALL TO ORDER – Michael Osborne called the meeting to order at 2:40 p.m. Task Force members in attendance: Carol Biedrzycki, Clay Butler, Barry Dreyling, Michael Osborne, Tom “Smitty” Smith and Michele Van Hyfte. Grace Hsieh, Cyrus Reed and Mike Sloan were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. The motion to approve minutes of the June 18, 2014 meeting, by Ms. Biedrzycki and seconded by Mr. Smith, passed on a vote of 6-0. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The following person addressed the Task Force: Susan Lippman – Provided an analysis of the low- and moderate-income weatherization goals. OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion regarding the report format, content and timing – Mr. Osborne distributed copies of the draft report to Task Force members. The group discussed which sections were mostly complete and which sections required work. During the discussion of the Environmental section, Mr. Butler urged the group to recommend a goal of zero emissions by 2030 (instead of 2040 or 2050) unless it breached the 2% affordability goal. For the Equity section, members discussed revising the recommendation regarding dedicating 10% of the energy efficiency budget to low income customers. During the discussion about the price of carbon and proposed EPA rules, Mr. Osborne said everyone should work to make sure that state laws were written to protect early adopters like Austin. Regarding the Fayette Power Project, Mr. Osborne said that several attorneys had discussed with him the idea that Austin could consider buying 100% of one unit to be in a position to ramp down and ultimately close the unit. The group discussed other sections and writing assignments. Ms. Biedrzycki offered to draft the Energy Efficiency section and Mr. Smith offered to draft the Zero Energy Buildings section. 3. Discussion and possible action on recommendations included in the report – There was no action on recommendations, however, on behalf of Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith made a motion to request that Austin Energy run two additional scenarios, one based on high gas and the other on high storage. The motion died for lack of a second. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 4. Discussion regarding future agenda items including issues raised during Citizen Communications – Mr. Osborne said that at the next meeting on July 2, the …
Citizen Communications: Susan Lippman's analysis of proposals regarding energy efficiency and weatherization goals for low, moderate income — original pdf
6-23 2014 To: Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force From: Susan Lippman An Analysis of the Low- and Moderate-Income Weatherization goals, as a Percentage of a Megawatt Goal, Compared to Percentage of a Budget—a Mostly Mathematical Discussion I have been studying and analyzing Austin Energy data a great deal since the June 12 meeting of Austin Interfaith’s Green Team (energy subcommittee). I hope to contribute some perspective from what I’ve been learning, with most emphasis on the mathematics and trying to see the numbers in their proportional contexts, and I hope this will be helpful to everyone interested in the discussion. Nothing here has been reviewed by members of any group I’m in. I’m focusing on the proposal for 10% of the demand reduction goal of 429 megawatts to be designated for low-income and moderate-income weatherization over 10 years. At the time we met I didn’t have the background to gauge whether this is an “incredibly high” target, or not, and I still want to mostly avoid value judgments, and focus on the math. (I will just say for myself that I place a very high value on both the climate protection and the equity goals of the task force.) Carol B., I appreciate what you are saying about a setting a goal that will be a challenge. I have a copy of Lanetta Cooper’s Memorandum to the Gen Plan Task Force, which recommends 10% of the demand savings as above, or “alternatively, 20% of AE’s Energy Efficiency budget should be spent on low and moderate income customer households with at least 10% prioritized for a low income weatherization program.” I will return to this alternative later. To summarize the results that will be reached at the end of these three pages, the percent of the annual EE budget that could be needed (under the assumptions employed) to meet the megawatt target could range from 40% to 80% of the current EE budget. These 3 results hinge on whether the MW savings of the Low- and moderate-income program is 1.0 MW, 0.75 MW, or 0.5 MW: Low estimate: $6,020,000 / $15,000,000 = 40% of EE budget Medium estimate: $7,980,000 / $15,000,000 = 53% of EE budget High estimate: $12,040,000 / $15,000,000 = 80% of EE budget Expansive changes in the assumptions used here could change everything of course, and are to be hoped for. My intent is to explain the …
Agenda — original pdf
Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force June 19, 2014 – 3:30 p.m. Waller Creek Center, Room 104 625 East 10th Street Austin, Texas For more information go to: Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force AGENDA Sharlene Leurig, Chair Tom Mason, Vice Chair Kris Bailey Christianne Castleberry Luke Metzger Marisa Perales Paul Robbins Lauren Ross Stefan Schuster Brian Smith Jennifer Walker A. CALL TO ORDER – June 19, 2014, 3:30 p.m. B. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda, but related to the charge of the task force, with up to 3 citizens donating their time to one individual. Citizens donating their time must be in the room at the time the speaker is at the podium and must have been in the first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order. C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Approval of the meeting minutes from the June 16, 2014 Task Force meeting D. VOTING ITEMS FROM TASK FORCE 1. Consider and approve recommendations and wording for report to City Council on water resources Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force Regular Meeting June 19, 2014 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give at least 4 days notice before the meeting date. Please call Felicia Cancino at the Austin Water Utility Department at 512-972-0114, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711 Page 2 of 2 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR TASK FORCE’S REVIEW 1. Discussion of Task Force and Working Group Goals including discussion of prioritizing short term supply side and demand side drought response options and recommendations F. STAFF BRIEFINGS, PRESENTATIONS, AND OR REPORTS 1. As needed, staff briefing on any Task Force requests related to prioritizing options or Task Force development of recommendations G. REPORTS BY TASK FORCE 1. Working Group Updates 1) Evaluate City’s Water Needs 2) Examine Future Water Sources 3) Evaluate Potential Water Management Scenarios H. NON VOTING DISCUSSION ITEMS None I. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS J. ADJOURN
Agenda — original pdf
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting to Toye Goodson, Austin Energy, at (512) 322-6450. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JUNE 18, 2014 2:30 PM AUSTIN CITY HALL – Room 1029 / “Bullpen” 301 W. SECOND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 MEMBERS:Michael Osborne, Chair Barry Dreyling, Vice Chair Clay Butler Carol Biedrzycki Grace Hsieh Cyrus Reed Mike Sloan Tom “Smitty” Smith Michele Van Hyfte For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/austin-generation-resource-planning-task-force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – June 18, 2014 at 2:30 a.m.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the June 11, 2014 meeting CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. BRIEFINGS 2. Presentation from Austin Energy depicting AE generation and AE load on a diurnal basis for the past 24 months in graphic form. OLD BUSINESS 3. Review of presentation by Austin Energy of wholesale real time market purchases since the adoption of the nodal market broken down by months. Market purchases related to unplanned outages of Austin Energy generation resources should be separated out and tied to the particular resource which was down. 4. Review of Presentation by Austin Energy of present and future costs associated with each generation resource to include “all in” production cost broken down on a dollar per watt basis that shall incorporate all costs associated with that resource. 5. Discussion of Austin energy resources and peak demand and demand side resources 6. Discussion regarding generation plan scenarios The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting to Toye Goodson, Austin Energy, at (512) 322-6450. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. 7. Discussion of Competitive Issues and other obstacles to the Task Force. 8. Discussion of Report Format and timing 9. …
Approved Minutes — original pdf
Page 1 of 2 The Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force (‘the Task Force’) convened in a meeting at Austin City Hall, Room 1029, 301 West Second Street, Austin, Texas. CALL TO ORDER – CALL TO ORDER – Michael Osborne called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m. Task Force members in attendance: Carol Biedrzycki, Clay Butler, Barry Dreyling, Grace Hsieh, Michael Osborne, Tom “Smitty” Smith and Michele Van Hyfte. Cyrus Reed and Mike Sloan were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. The motion to approve minutes of the June 11, 2014 meeting, by Ms. Biedrzycki and seconded by Mr. Dreyling, passed on a vote of 7-0. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The following persons addressed the Task Force: Mark Kapner – the current rate structure affects commercial customers’ ability to add solar because there was an uncertainty on when demand charges would occur; he suggested that the group recommend that AE tweak the rate structure to allow customers the option of having their demand be calculated during the system peak between 4:00-6:00 p.m. Paul Robbins – criticized information “going around” about how San Antonio is a model for low-income programs; he said that AE’s demand side programs save 74% more energy than San Antonio’s programs and cautioned against comparisons of the two utilities. Ross Smith – supports building another solar project like Webberville on closed landfills. David Dixon – urged shifting the focus to renewables including the LSAC recommendation of 400 MW of solar and energy storage projects. BRIEFINGS 2. Presentation from Austin Energy depicting AE generation and AE load on a diurnal basis for the past 24 months in graphic form by Sathibabu “Babu” Chakka, Manager, Energy Market Analysis. OLD BUSINESS 3. Review of presentation by Austin Energy of wholesale real time market purchases since the adoption of the nodal market broken down by months. Market purchases related to unplanned outages of Austin Energy generation resources should be separated out and tied to the particular resource which was down – No discussion. 4. Review of Presentation by Austin Energy of present and future costs associated with each generation resource to include “all in” production cost broken down on a dollar per watt basis that shall incorporate all costs associated with that resource – No discussion. 5. Discussion of Austin energy resources and peak demand and demand side resources – No discussion. 6. Discussion regarding generation plan scenarios – Members acknowledged receipt …
Item 2: Presentation by Austin Energy — original pdf
June 18, 2014 June 18, 2014 Austin Energy Update to Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force Babu Chakka - Manager, Energy Market Analysis INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Agenda •Hourly Average Generation and Load for Austin Energy by Season for last 3 years 3 INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2011 Fall 4 0200400600800100012001400160018002000MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2011_FallAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadFall Covers months – Sept, Oct, Nov INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2011 Winter 5 02004006008001000120014001600MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2011_WinterAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadWinter Covers months – Dec, Jan, Feb INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2011 Spring 6 020040060080010001200140016001800MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2011_SpringAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadSpring Covers months – Mar, Apr, May INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2011 Summer 7 050010001500200025003000MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2011_SummerAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadSummer Covers months – Jun, Jul, Aug INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2012 Fall 8 020040060080010001200140016001800MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2012_FallAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadFall Covers months – Sept, Oct, Nov INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2012 Winter 9 02004006008001000120014001600MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2012_WinterAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadWinter Covers months – Dec, Jan, Feb INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2012 Spring 10 020040060080010001200140016001800MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2012_SpringAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadSpring Covers months – Mar, Apr, May INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2012 Summer 11 05001000150020002500MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2012_SummerAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadSummer Covers months – Jun, Jul, Aug INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2013 Fall 12 0200400600800100012001400160018002000MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2013_FallAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadFall Covers months – Sept, Oct, Nov INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2013 Winter 13 02004006008001000120014001600MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2013_WinterAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadWinter Covers months – Dec, Jan, Feb INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 18, 2014 Hourly Average Generation & Load for 2013 Spring 14 02004006008001000120014001600MWH------------>Hour of the day -------->2013_SpringAvg.Renewable GenerationAvg. Conventional GenerationAvg. LoadSpring Covers months – Mar, Apr, May INVESTING …
Agenda — original pdf
Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force June 16, 2014 – 6:00 p.m. Waller Creek Center, Room 104 625 East 10th Street Austin, Texas For more information go to: Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force AGENDA Sharlene Leurig, Chair Tom Mason, Vice Chair Kris Bailey Christianne Castleberry Luke Metzger Marisa Perales Paul Robbins Lauren Ross Stefan Schuster Brian Smith Jennifer Walker A. CALL TO ORDER – June 16, 2014, 6:00 p.m. B. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda, but related to the charge of the task force, with up to 3 citizens donating their time to one individual. Citizens donating their time must be in the room at the time the speaker is at the podium and must have been in the first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order. C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Approval of the meeting minutes from the June 11, 2014 Task Force meeting D. VOTING ITEMS FROM TASK FORCE 1. Consider and approve recommendations and wording for report to City Council on water resources Austin Water Resource Planning Task Force Regular Meeting June 16, 2014 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give at least 4 days notice before the meeting date. Please call Felicia Cancino at the Austin Water Utility Department at 512-972-0114, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711 Page 2 of 2 E. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR TASK FORCE’S REVIEW 1. Discussion of Task Force and Working Group Goals including discussion of prioritizing short term supply side and demand side drought response options and recommendations F. STAFF BRIEFINGS, PRESENTATIONS, AND OR REPORTS 1. As needed, staff briefing on any Task Force requests related to prioritizing options or Task Force development of recommendations G. REPORTS BY TASK FORCE 1. Working Group Updates 1) Evaluate City’s Water Needs 2) Examine Future Water Sources 3) Evaluate Potential Water Management Scenarios H. NON VOTING DISCUSSION ITEMS None I. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS J. ADJOURN
Agenda — original pdf
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting to (512) 322-6087. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE JUNE 11, 2014 9:30 AM AUSTIN CITY HALL – ROOM 1029 (STAFF BULLPEN) 301 W. SECOND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 MEMBERS:Michael Osborne, Chair Barry Dreyling, Vice Chair Clay Butler Carol Biedrzycki Grace Hsieh Cyrus Reed Mike Sloan Tom “Smitty” Smith Michele Van Hyfte For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/austin-generation-resource-planning-task-force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER – June 11, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the May 29, 2014 and June 4, 2014 meetings. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first five speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Briefing on green pricing and other voluntary programs 3. Presentation of quarterly financial reports 4. Briefing on the relicensing process for the South Texas Project 5. Presentation of greenhouse gas emissions reports 2005-2013 OLD BUSINESS 6. Discussion of past Austin Energy presentations regarding wholesale real time market purchases and net market purchases expressed as a percentage of Austin Energy load 7. Discussion of past Austin Energy presentations regarding present and future costs associated with each generation resource 8. Discussion of Austin Energy resources, peak demand and demand side resources 9. Discussion of Generation Plan scenarios 10. Discussion of competitive issues and other obstacles to the Task Force. The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least three days before the meeting to (512) 322-6087. TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. NEW BUSINESS 11. Discussion regarding the Task Force report outline, format and timing 12. Discussion and possible action regarding Task Force report recommendations FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. Discussion regarding future agenda items, including a schedule of topics, and issues raised during briefings and Citizen Communications during this meeting ADJOURNMENT
Approved Minutes — original pdf
Page 1 of 2 AUSTIN GENERATION RESOURCE PLANNING TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 11, 2014 The Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force (‘the Task Force’) convened in a meeting at Austin City Hall, Room 1029, 301 West Second Street, Austin, Texas. CALL TO ORDER – Michael Osborne called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m. Task Force members in attendance: Carol Biedrzycki, Clay Butler, Barry Dreyling, Michael Osborne, Cyrus Reed and Mike Sloan. Tom “Smitty” Smith called in to listen. Michele Van Hyfte and Grace Hsieh were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the May 29, 2014 and June 4, 2014 meetings. Motion to approve May 29, 2014 minutes (Biedrzycki); seconded (Reed); approved on a vote of 6-0 (with Smith off the dais and Van Hyfte and Hsieh absent). Motion to approve June 4, 2014 minutes (Dreyling); seconded (Reed); approved on a vote of 6-0 (with Smith off the dais and Van Hyfte and Hsieh absent). CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The following persons addressed the Task Force: • Al Braden – no coal; more electric vehicles • Karen Hadden – as citizen, not Electric Utility Commissioner; look at replacement power to replace South Texas Project as of 2024 • Susan Lippman – no coal • Kaiba White – eliminate carbon/GHG emissions STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Briefing on green pricing and other voluntary programs by Austin Energy’s Liz Jambor, Manager, Customer Energy Solutions and Pat Sweeney, Acting VP Finance 3. Presentation of quarterly financial reports – no discussion 4. Briefing on the relicensing process for the South Texas Project by Austin Energy’s Elaina Ball, VP Power Production 5. Presentation of greenhouse gas emissions reports 2005-2013 by Austin Energy’s Matt Russell, Manager, Environmental Services OLD BUSINESS 6. Discussion of past Austin Energy presentations regarding wholesale real time market purchases and net market purchases expressed as a percentage of Austin Energy load – Babu Chakka, Energy Market Operations responded to questions regarding the answers/charts/graphs Austin Energy provided in response to prior Task Force requests for information and questions submitted. Page 2 of 2 7. Discussion of past Austin Energy presentations regarding present and future costs associated with each generation resource – No discussion. 8. Discussion of Austin Energy resources, peak demand and demand side resources – No discussion. 9. Discussion of Generation Plan scenarios – No discussion. 10. Discussion of competitive issues and other obstacles to the Task Force – No discussion …
Item 12: Handout from Task Force Member Carol Biedrzycki — original pdf
JUNE 11, 2014 ITEM 12 Carol Biedrzycki CONCEPTS FOR REACHING THE UNDERSERVED AND HAVING THEM BENEFIT FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SOLAR PROGRAMS On Monday June 2, 2014 Carol Biedrzycki, Kaiba White and Kristian Caballero met to discuss alternatives for improving the ability of Austin Energy’s underserved residential customers to lower their utility costs through energy efficiency and renewable energy program. Note that both individuals spoke at the May 29, 2014 Task Force meeting held to receive public comment. Austin Energy and the City need to take deliberate steps to reach its goal for net zero energy growth and achieve many energy efficiency savings that will lower the bills of households paying an above average percentage of their income for electricity. The following are concepts the city should thoroughly explore in order to increase the amount of energy efficiency achieved in the homes of underserved residential customers: Payment of incentives on an income based sliding scale. The concept of a sliding scale of incentives can be applied to every Austin Energy residential program offering 100% to those below 200% of the Federal Poverty Guideline-(FPG) and reducing the percent of the incentive as income increases with the highest income groups being eligible for 0%. Neighborhood based energy efficiency programs. Conduct energy efficiency programs that are geographically targeted to underserved neighborhoods in the city. Preferably this should be a joint effort with Neighborhood Housing to maximize the number of homes retrofitted. It is not uncommon for homes to be disqualified for energy efficiency improvements because of a significant need for ancillary repairs. Having a remedy for the needed home repairs will help the families the most and maximize the energy saving benefits of the program. Combined community and city resources to effectively deliver programs (e.g. single point of contact), locate the underserved (e.g. door-to-door outreach) and deliver energy efficiency and renewable energy program benefits to them. Creation of a consumer committee to make recommendations to Austin Energy and City Council regarding development and design of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for underserved residential consumers.
Item 4 - Briefing STP Relicensing — original pdf
STP Nuclear Operating Company June 11, 2014 License Renewal 1 Overview Generating capacity of approximately 2,700 MWs, the state-of-the-art facility is one of the nation’s newest, largest nuclear plants Large, dual-unit pressurized water reactor facility Westinghouse 4 loop technology Located on a 12,200-acre site on the Colorado River 7,000-acre, above grade, off-channel, main cooling reservoir, sized for four units Commercial operation began in August, 1988 and June, 1989, respectively 2 Company Structure Ownership Structure 44% NRG Energy 40% CPS Energy (San Antonio) 16 % Austin Energy Operated by STP Nuclear Operating Company Non-stock, non-profit, non-member corporation NRC license 40 year licenses, expiring in 2027 and 2028 Applied for 20 year renewal in October 2010 3 Current Status The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 permits nuclear plants to renew operating licenses License renewal application submitted to NRC in October 2010 Received the Final Safety Evaluation Report (Feb. 2013) All applications held in abeyance while NRC adjudicates Waste Confidence Ruling NRC resolution of Waste Confidence Ruling is on track for October 2014. The NRC conducts a rigorous review during the license renewal process Nuclear energy facilities in the United States are initially licensed to operate for 40 years 4 Background NRC’s renewal review is a detailed process that typically takes 30 months NRC has renewed 73 operating licenses of 100 power reactors with 18 more in review STP developed the License Renewal Application in collaboration with the Strategic Alliance and Resource Sharing partnership, a group of seven nuclear facilities
Item 5 - Briefing GHG Emissions — original pdf
INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE February 2014 Key Performance Indicators: Total CO2 Emissions Austin Energy today has almost the same total generating capacity (MW) that emits CO2 as in 1990, despite Austin’s growth – compared to Texas up 42%. 1 INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE February 2014 Key Performance Indicators: Average CO2 per MWh Generation Austin Energy’s system average CO2 emissions rate has decreased 14% since 2005 due to renewable additions. It will continue to decrease as new wind resources come online. 2 INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE February 2014 Key Performance Indicators: SO2 Emissions Austin Energy SO2 emissions, almost exclusively from the Fayette Power Project, decreased more than 95% beginning in 2011 when the scrubbers went online. SO2 also can contribute to acid rain and particulate matter pollution. 3 INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE February 2014 Key Performance Indicators: NOx Emissions Austin Energy’s power plant NOx emissions decreased 75% between 2000 and 2012, lowering contribution to ozone-forming pollution. 4 INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE February 2014 Emissions by Unit 5 CO2 emissions by unit in metric tonnes per year Unit 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Decker 1 236,913 402,737 272,360 431,130 321,558 258,481 284,459 218,698 111,251 Decker 2 308,434 367,785 349,898 515,441 520,480 437,046 413,055 416,677 217,787 Decker GT1 10,674 14,463 11,869 8,537 9,021 10,126 11,159 4,363 6,289 Decker GT2 9,351 12,707 20,200 15,080 8,276 7,499 13,104 5,177 7,880 Decker GT3 10,217 14,243 18,154 21,937 15,620 4,634 4,982 4,439 9,271 Decker GT4 8,449 18,381 13,936 16,536 9,655 7,198 15,102 5,143 7,137 Holly 3 96,983 150,007 132,229 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holly 4 143,786 159,755 113,840 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHEC 1 44,466 37,391 31,937 25,228 28,622 21,771 28,839 22,517 23,081 SHEC 2 44,449 36,794 22,309 40,589 22,656 31,927 30,068 28,571 33,028 SHEC 3 44,160 35,280 17,011 41,487 23,346 27,653 31,847 27,177 28,222 SHEC 4 43,657 28,900 38,747 33,320 25,438 29,627 28,575 24,952 22,736 SHEC 5 578,793 506,702 611,531 651,557 668,927 616,716 512,471 552,505 435,670 SHEC 6 0 0 0 10,077 19,544 15,729 28,329 SHEC 7 0 0 0 10,894 18,721 16,005 28,990 FPP 1 1,939,771 1,835,907 2,162,490 2,035,501 1,925,037 1,671,170 2,082,192 1,757,843 1,778,049 FPP 2 2,018,123 1,803,285 2,247,933 2,017,993 1,890,264 1,938,278 2,321,753 1,519,239 2,121,782 CO2 emissions by facility in metric tonnes per year Facility 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Decker Creek (Gas) 584,038 830,317 686,418 1,008,662 884,609 …
Item 6 - Answers to Questions — original pdf
June 4, 2014 June 4, 2014 Austin Energy Update to Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force Babu Chakka - Manager, Energy Market Analysis INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 4, 2014 Agenda •Austin Energy All in historical production cost/revenue for Gas with Natural Gas Risk Management •Back cast of recent Solar contract •Renewable cost assumptions for Resource Planning 3 INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 4, 2014 Austin Energy All in Production Cost/Revenue for Gas units 4 $0$20$40$60$80$100$120$140Millions of Dollars (M$)Total Natural Gas GenerationNatural Gas Risk ManagementNon-Fuel CostFuel CostMarket RevenueGenerationMWhFuel Cost($Million)Non-Fuel Cost($Million)Total Cost($Million)Total Cost($/MWH)Total Revenue ($Million)Total Revenue ($/MWH)Natural Gas Risk Management Cost ($Million)Net Revenue/Cost without Risk Management ($Million)Net Revenue/Cost without Risk Management ($/MWH)Net Revenue/Cost with Risk Management ($Million)Net Revenue/Cost with Risk Management ($/MWH)CY 20111,760,176$116.3$28.6$144.8$82.28$242.7 $137.87 $48.12 $97.8 $55.59$49.7 $28.26CY 20121,388,101$75.0$33.7$108.7$78.32$94.3 $67.95 $66.61 ($14.4)($10.37)($81.0)($58.36)SummaryNote: Risk Management cost is a cost associated with load and has nothing to do with Generation INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 4, 2014 Back Cast Analysis Assumptions •Based upon hourly profile provided by the proposer –Same for both 2011 & 2012 •Revenues are based on AE Load Zone LMP •Does not include any congestion cost, contract sharing cost etc., in the analysis 5 INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 4, 2014 Back cast of West Texas Solar (Recent Solar Contract) 6 $0.0$2.0$4.0$6.0$8.0$10.0$12.0Millions of Dollars (M$)Back Cast West Texas SolarPPA Cost @ 48 $/MWHPPA Cost @ 55 $/MWHMarket RevenueGenerationMWhPPA Cost @ 48 $/MWH($Million)PPA Cost @ 55 $/MWH($Million)Total Revenue ($Million)Net Revenue @ 48/MWH($ Million)Net Revenue @ 55/MWH($ Million)Net Revenue/Cost @ 48/MWH($ /MWH)Net Revenue/Cost @ 55/MWH($ /MWH)CY2011436,235$20.9$24.0$26.9 $6.0 $2.9$13.66$6.66CY 2012436,235$20.9$24.0$13.6 ($7.3)($10.4)($16.73)($23.73) INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 4, 2014 Projected Production Cost for Wind 7 Other costs such as Congestion cost & contract sharing cost are not included here Includes all existing wind resources that are currently in commercial operation or become available in the planning period $38.21$33.91$34.29$34.56$34.67$34.80$34.88$34.99$35.11$32.70$32.86$0.00$5.00$10.00$15.00$20.00$25.00$30.00$35.00$40.00$45.00Austin Energy Wind Cost ($/MWh) INVESTING IN A CLEAN FUTURE June 4, 2014 Utility Scale Solar Cost Assumptions for Resource Planning 8 020406080100120140160Levelized Cost ($/MWH)Utility Scale Solar (West Texas) Base Cost Assumptions ($/MWh)Base Cost Assumptions without PTC/ITC ($/MWh)High Cost Assumptions ($/MWh)Low Cost Assumptions ($/MWh)Low Cost Assumptions without PTC/ITC ($/MWh)Note: 1.2015 cost range with PTC/ITC generally based on recent Austin Energy Bids 2.Solar PV assumed flat through 2017 (i.e. cost decreases at about general inflation rate of 2.1%) then increases at 2.1% general inflation through 2025 3.Wind cost assumptions escalated at general inflation …