Specifications include, but are not limited to:The successful proposer will analyze Austin Water’s efforts to reduce potable water usage, compare efforts to national best practices and leading peers, and provide recommendations where programs should be stopped, modifications should be made, and what new approaches should be tried. The report should assist Austin Water staff in focusing their efforts to maximize results in terms of potable water use reduction. B.Below are the minimum categories that should be analyzed for utility-driven reduction of potable water usage. This study does not need to be quantitative in nature and does not require a detailed cost benefit analysis. It is not considered a conservation potential assessment. However, it should be qualitatively exhaustive. Recommendations for new programs or conservation initiatives that result from this study may be further analyzed as part of the Integrated Water Resource Plan. 1.Customer Types: wholesale, commercial, urban farms, industrial (esp. semiconductor), residential 2.Customer Usage: indoor & outdoor use 3.Leakage Management: pressure, testing, replacement, leak fixes 4.Alternative Water Sources: gray water, reclaimed water, rainwater capture, HVAC condensate 5.New Building Codes: indoor and outdoor requirements 6.Financial Incentives: rebates and incentives 7.Price Signals to Change Consumer Behavior: conservation rate structure 8.Communications Strategies to Change Consumer Behavior: new or innovative media and marketing approaches, targeted outreach strategies to specific audiences, watering restriction advertisement, software and usage apps, spending comparison to other peer city conservation programs C. Potential Peer Comparisons: Dallas Water Utilities, San Antonio Water System, El Paso Water Utilities, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Diego County Water Authority, Denver Water, Portland Water Bureau, Seattle Public Utilities, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Southern Nevada Water Authority
