CCR Electronic Delivery 

Savings SurveyJuly 18, 2012

Adam Carpenter and J. Alan RobersonAmerican Water Works AssociationWashington, D.C.
Electronic Delivery of CCRs

• AWWA believes that the electronic delivery o

represents a way to significantly reduce environmental impact through reduced paperealize substantial cost savings for utilities, anprovide other benefits to consumers simulta

• The results from our 2012 CCR Cost Savings S

reinforce that belief and provide a deeper understanding of opportunities to both custoutilities
Previous AWWA Surveys and Pi

• 2010 Survey of Utilities (n = 213) revealed dif

for utilities in obtaining and maintaining custemails, but a strong desire to post CCR informutility’s website

• August 2011 electronic survey conducted by 

Knowledge Networks (n = 2,348) suggested tconsumers were open to alternative methoddelivery (details on following slide)

• AWWA has worked with Ames, IA, and York, 

successful electronic delivery pilots
How Would Consumers Want to A

2011 Consumer Survey

 50% recommended methods other than mai

of full CCR. 

• Online at water utility website – 13.9%• A postcard or other mailing – 12.5%• Mailed to my residence – 49.2%• Full CCR in major newspaper – 3.6%• Newspaper notice reporting whether my water met a

regulations – 3.5%

• Posted notice at water utility’s office – 1.1%• Don’t want or don’t need – 15.5%

n = 2,348
2012 CCR Cost Savings Surv

• Survey developed through collaboration and 

testing with 14 utility volunteers

• Aimed to identify potential cost savings and o

opportunities of electronic delivery of CCRs

• Sent to AWWA’s utility members (approximat

with 10 days to respond in late June / early Ju

• 256 surveys completed (responses per questi

• 713 utilities total (some responses were aggregate

systems)

• Approximately 25,462,000 customers served 

utilities
What Was Asked?

- Current costs of paper CCRs

- Design- Printing / Materials- Postage / Delivery

- Environmental impact- Utility website information- Projected cost savings for various elect

delivery methods

- Other potential benefits of electronic d
System Size Categories Represen

* System size categories are the same as those from the 1998 CRegister (FR) notice cost estimates**For responses that were aggregates of multiple utilities, it wathat the utilities represented per response were all of equal size 

System Size* Utilities** Percen<500 185 26%501 - 3,300 22 10%3,301 - 10,000 63 9%10,001 - 50,000 312 44%50,000+ 55 8%Did not Specify 23 4%Total 713
Environmental Impact

• 12,500,000 CCRs delivered by these utili• CCRs averaged 3.5 sheets of paper (8.5” 

each

• 212 tons of paper or 4,250 trees were use

the CCRs from these utilities

• Scaling up, this translates to approximate

tons of paper or 44,000 trees for printing nationally

N = 218 Responses
Utility Website Informatio

• 88% of responding utilities already have a we

and currently post their CCR on it

• 96% combined current and near future availa• Infrastructure to post CCRs on the utility’s we

well established in most places

N = 227 Responses

Have Website and Post 

CCR (88%)

Have Website and PoHave Website and Do Have Website and wiyears (4%)No Website (3%)No website, but plann(4%)
Current CCR Costs

• 88% of reported CCR costs were printing an• CCR FR notice estimated (in 1998) $20,807

utility compliance ($29,338,653 in 2012 dolla

Cost Type Responses

(n=120)

National Estim(85% of U.S. population)

CCR Design & Creation

$247,000 $3,366,000

CCR Printing & Materials

$829,000 $11,304,000

CCR Postage & Delivery

$990,000 $13,504,000

Total $2,066,000 $28,174,000
Cost Savings - Preview

Delivery Method National Savings

Estimate

TS

Email w/ PDF $3,485,000 1Email w/ URL $5,254,000 1Postcard w/ URL $1,305,000 Bill w/ URL $19,549,000 6
National Cost Savings Estim

Estimated national CCR cost ($28,174

X

Percentage estimated costs savings for 

X

Percentage of utilities that would consid

the method

=

National Savings Estimate

(Upper bound)

*The national CCR cost and percentages are rounded on the following clarity. Cost savings were calculated without rounding, so cost savings slightly from the shown calculations due to this rounding.
Cost Savings:

Email with PDF

• 20% of responses would consider using this 

(41 of 205)

• 93 responses provided cost savings informat• 23% of those responses were certain there w

would be no savings (21 of 93)

• 60% mean cost savings among those who re

$28.17M X 60% X 20% = 

National Savings Estimate: $3,485

• Difficult to collect and maintain email address

Some have told us that sending PDFs is not technically feasible due to large file size and server capacity.
Cost Savings:

Email with URL

• 31% of responses would consider using this 

(63 of 205)

• 93 responses provided cost savings informat• 23% of those responses were certain there w

would be no savings (21 of 93)

• 61% mean cost savings among those who re

$28.17M X 61% X 31% = 

National Savings Estimate: $5,254

• Difficult to collect and maintain email address

reconcile paper and email lists, some utilities maintaining emails as impossible.
Cost Savings:

Postcard with URL

• 17% of responses would consider using this 

(35 of 205)

• 118 responses provided cost savings informa• 40% of those responses were certain there w

would be no savings (47 of 118)

• 27% mean cost savings among those who re

$28.17M X 27% X 17% = 

National Savings Estimate: $1,305

• Does not require email address collection. A 

technologically easy method, but modest cos
Cost Savings:

URL on Bill or Bill Insert

• 93% of responses would consider using this 

(190 of 205)

• 157 responses provided cost savings informa• <8% of those responses were certain there w

would be no savings (12 of 157)

• 75% mean cost savings among those who re

$28.17M X 75% X 93% = 

National Savings Estimate: $19,549

• Simple, easy to understand, does not require 

collection of email addresses
Cost Savings - Summary

Delivery Method Mean % 

Savings

% thatwould use

National SavingsEstimate

Email w/ PDF 60% 20% $3,485,000 Email w/ URL 61% 31% $5,254,000 Postcard w/ URL 27% 17% $1,305,000 Bill w/ URL 75% 93% $19,549,000 • Projected national cost savings of URL on a bill o

insert method likely to save far more any other smethod.

• Recognizing that every utility is unique, the flexib

multiple electronic delivery options would allow eutility to choose an optimal method for their situatheir customers.
Note On Cost Savings

• Two responses were from companies that re

a large number of utilities (one was 240 systeother was 163 systems). 

• These responses were given only one “vote” 

whether they would or would not use a methoindicated they would use only the bill / bill insfor compliance (one stated they may send an addition to the bill / bill insert for additional ou

• Had these responses been counted as multip

the numbers would have favored the bill / bill option to an even greater extent
Other Benefits of Electronic De

• 34% of responding utilities would volunta

provide additional water quality parametemore water system information with electdelivery (N= 204)

• 40% of responding utilities would volunta

update water quality information more frethan annually with electronic delivery (N=
Other Benefits of Electronic De

• Most utilities believe their customers wou

appreciate electronic delivery for the folloreasons (N=206):

• The use of modern technology (55%)• The cost efficiency (68%)• The reduced environmental impact (63%).

• Few utilities believe that their customers w

disapprove of electronic delivery (<7%)
Comments – Electronic Deliv

“Some customers call to say thank you... bucall to complain about the junk mail and to pcost of printing and mailing” 

– Northeast utility serving over 200,000

“Electronic delivery is a win for utilities and customers.”

– Southeast utility serving about 4,000

“Bill stuffers will save this small utility substaand money.

– Northwest utility serving about 2,500
Comments – Email Address

“It would be very, very unlikely that the Utilitacquire the email addresses of all of its custbelieve a requirement to obtain email addreall customers would be onerous and, for all purposes, impossible at the present time.”

– Northeast utility serving over 20,000

“Collecting email addresses and maintaining a lot of work and would probably just mail ththose were the only option.”

– Southeast utility serving over 40,000
Conclusions

1. Dramatic cost savings (potentially up to 70% 

CCR related costs) can be achieved through allowing utilities to provide CCR notification a URL on a bill or bill insert, leading to tens millions of dollars saved.

2. Methods requiring the collection of email ad

may be difficult to impossible at some utilitiealthough other utilities report modest potentsavings (less than bill/insert options).

3. Substantial environmental impact of CCR pr

can be avoided through electronic delivery, other additional benefits to both utilities and customers.
Questions?
Contact Information

Adam Carpenter

Regulatory Analyst

202-326-6126

acarpenter@awwa.org

Alan Roberson

Director of Federal Relations

202-326-6127

aroberson@awwa.org