1. Pricing 2. Programming 3. Pleading 4. Prohibiting 5. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Mar 25, 2023 283 likes •380 views

1. Pricing 2. Programming 3. Pleading 4. Prohibiting 5. Pressuring 6. Plastering ample evidence but it depends on local conditions monitoring regressive Efficient Households: 11.6 11.6 Demand reduction attributable to EMWDs 10

SLIDE 1

SLIDE 2

1. Pricing
2. Programming
3. Pleading
4. Prohibiting
5. Pressuring
6. Plastering

SLIDE 3

ample evidence but it depends on local conditions monitoring regressive

SLIDE 4

0% 5% Mar-09 Jul-09 Nov-09 Mar-10 Jul-10 Nov-10 Mar-11 Jul-11 Nov-11 Mar-12 Jul-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 Jul-13 Nov-13 Mar-14

Demand reduction attributable to EMWD’s budget-based rates (Baerenklau et al. 2014)

Full sample Inefficient Average Efficient

2 4 6 8 10 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Number of months

Efficient Households: 11.6  11.6

2008 2013 2 4 6 8 10 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Number of months

Inefficient Households: 3.4  8.6

2008 2013

SLIDE 5

expectations vary significantly are not as cost-effective

equity issues

SLIDE 6

10 20 30 Post (July-Sep 2012) Pre (July-Sep 2010) No Voucher Voucher Differences (2010-12) +1.66 CCF (8% increase)

0.22 CCF (0.8% decrease)
1.88 CCF (9% decrease)

Difference in Difference (Voucher minus No Voucher)

Avg. Monthly

Water Use (CCF)

Demand reduction attributable to WMWD sprinkler nozzle give-away (Schwabe et al. 2014)

33 19 62 18

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 North Marin Water District 1989 (n=46) Albuquerque, NM since 1996 Southern Nevada Water Authority El Paso, Texas 2004 (n=385)

Gallons per square foot

Estimated Water Savings from Various Turf Replacement Programs (Addink 2014) Cost/AF: $512 $718 $532 $1834

Did not require irrigation improvements

SLIDE 7

Voluntary requests

no reduction 2.7% reduction 5% effect

Mandatory restrictions

SLIDE 8

Pressuring

4.8% reduction 5.6% reduction

Plastering
Message source variety

SLIDE 9

robust rate structure complements avoid mandatory restrictions

Messaging
Understanding