CCR Electronic Delivery CostSavings SurveyJuly 18, 2012Adam Carpenter and J. Alan RobersonAmerican Water Works AssociationWashington, D.C.Electronic Delivery of CCRs•AWWA believes that the electronic delivery of CCRsrepresents a way to significantly reduceenvironmental impact through reduced paper use,realize substantial cost savings for utilities, andprovide other benefits to consumers simultaneously.•The results from our 2012 CCR Cost Savings Surveyreinforce that belief and provide a deeperunderstanding of opportunities to both customers andutilitiesPrevious AWWA Surveys and Pilots•2010 Survey of Utilities (n = 213) revealed difficultiesfor utilities in obtaining and maintaining customeremails, but a strong desire to post CCR informationonutility’s website•August 2011 electronic survey conducted byKnowledge Networks (n = 2,348) suggested thatconsumers were open to alternative methods of CCRdelivery (details on following slide)•AWWA has worked with Ames, IA, and York, PA onsuccessful electronic delivery pilotsHow Would Consumers Want to Access?2011 Consumer Survey50% recommended methods other than mail deliveryof 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 allof theregulations – 3.5%•Posted notice at water utility’s office – 1.1%•Don’t want or don’t need – 15.5%n = 2,3482012 CCR Cost Savings Survey•Survey developed through collaboration and pilottesting with 14 utility volunteers•Aimed to identify potential cost savings and otheropportunities of electronic delivery of CCRs•Sent to AWWA’s utility members (approximately 4,000)with 10 days to respond in late June / early July 2012•256 surveys completed (responses per question vary)•713 utilities total (some responses were aggregatesof multiplesystems)•Approximately 25,462,000 customers served by theseutilitiesWhat Was Asked?-Current costs of paper CCRs-Design-Printing / Materials-Postage / Delivery-Environmental impact-Utility website information-Projected cost savings for various electronicdelivery methods-Other potential benefits of electronic deliverySystem Size Categories Represented* System size categories are the same as those fromthe 1998 CCR FederalRegister (FR) notice cost estimates**For responses that were aggregates of multiple utilities, it was presumedthat the utilities represented per response were all of equal size (averaged)System Size* Utilities** Percent<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 713Environmental Impact•12,500,000 CCRs delivered by these utilities•CCRs averaged 3.5 sheets of paper (8.5” x 11”)each•212 tons of paper or 4,250 trees were used to printthe CCRs from these utilities•Scaling up, this translates to approximately2,218tons of paperor44,000 treesfor printing CCRsnationallyN = 218 ResponsesUtility Website Information•88% of responding utilities already have a websiteand currently post their CCR on it•96% combined current and near future availability•Infrastructure to post CCRs on the utility’s website iswell established in most placesN = 227 ResponsesHave Website and PostCCR (88%)Have Website and Post CCR (88%)Have Website and Do Not Post (1%)Have Website and will Post in next 5years (4%)No Website (3%)No website, but planned and will post(4%)Current CCR Costs•88% of reported CCR costs were printing and mailing•CCR FR notice estimated (in 1998) $20,807,555 forutility compliance ($29,338,653 in 2012 dollars)Cost Type Responses(n=120)National Estimate(85% of U.S.population)CCR Design &Creation$247,000 $3,366,000CCR Printing &Materials$829,000 $11,304,000CCR Postage &Delivery$990,000 $13,504,000Total $2,066,000$28,174,000Cost Savings - PreviewDelivery Method National SavingsEstimateTotal %SavedEmail w/ PDF $3,485,000 12.4%Email w/ URL $5,254,000 18.6%Postcard w/ URL $1,305,000 4.6%Bill w/ URL $19,549,000 69.4%National Cost Savings EstimateEstimated national CCR cost ($28,174,000)XPercentage estimated costs savings for methodXPercentage of utilities that would consider usingthe method=National Savings Estimate(Upper bound)*The national CCR cost and percentages are roundedon the following slides forclarity. Cost savings were calculated without rounding, so cost savings estimates differslightly from the shown calculations due to this rounding.Cost Savings:Email with PDF•20% of responses would consider using this method(41 of 205)•93 responses provided cost savings information•23% of those responses were certain there werewould be no savings (21 of 93)•60% mean cost savings among those who responded$28.17M X 60% X 20% =National Savings Estimate: $3,485,000•Difficult to collect and maintain email addresses.Some have told us that sending PDFs is nottechnically feasible due to large file size and emailserver capacity.Cost Savings:Email with URL•31% of responses would consider using this method(63 of 205)•93 responses provided cost savings information•23% of those responses were certain there werewould be no savings (21 of 93)•61% mean cost savings among those who responded$28.17M X 61% X 31% =National Savings Estimate: $5,254,000•Difficult to collect and maintain email addresses and toreconcile paper and email lists, some utilities reportmaintaining emails as impossible.Cost Savings:Postcard with URL•17% of responses would consider using this method(35 of 205)•118 responses provided cost savings information•40% of those responses were certain there werewould be no savings (47 of 118)•27% mean cost savings among those who responded$28.17M X 27% X 17% =National Savings Estimate: $1,305,000•Does not require email address collection. Atechnologically easy method, but modest cost savings.Cost Savings:URL on Bill or Bill Insert•93% of responses would consider using this method(190 of 205)•157 responses provided cost savings information•<8% of those responses were certain there werewould be no savings (12 of 157)•75% mean cost savings among those who responded$28.17M X 75% X 93% =National Savings Estimate: $19,549,000•Simple, easy to understand, does not requirecollection of email addressesCost Savings - SummaryDelivery Method Mean %Savings% thatwoulduseNationalSavingsEstimateTotal %SavedEmail w/ PDF 60% 20% $3,485,000 12.4%Email w/ URL 61% 31% $5,254,000 18.6%Postcard w/ URL 27% 17% $1,305,000 4.6%Bill w/ URL 75% 93% $19,549,000 69.4%• Projected national cost savings of URL on a bill or billinsert method likely to save far more any other singlemethod.• Recognizing that every utility is unique, the flexibility ofmultiple electronic delivery options would allow eachutility to choose an optimal method for their situation andtheir customers.Note On Cost Savings•Two responses were from companies that representeda large number of utilities (one was 240 systems theother was 163 systems).•These responses were given only one “vote” forwhether they would or would not use a method, bothindicated they would use only the bill / bill insert methodfor compliance (one stated they may send an email inaddition to the bill / bill insert for additional outreach)•Had these responses been counted as multiple “votes”the numbers would have favored the bill / bill insertoption to an even greater extentOther Benefits of Electronic Delivery•34% of responding utilities would voluntarilyprovide additional water quality parameters ormore water system information with electronicdelivery (N= 204)•40% of responding utilities would voluntarilyupdate water quality information more frequentlythan annually with electronic delivery (N=205)Other Benefits of Electronic Delivery•Most utilities believe their customers wouldappreciate electronic delivery for the followingreasons (N=206):•The use of modern technology (55%)•The cost efficiency (68%)•The reduced environmental impact (63%).•Few utilities believe that their customers woulddisapprove of electronic delivery (<7%)Comments – Electronic Delivery“Some customers call to say thank you... but mostcall to complain about the junk mail and to protest thecost of printing and mailing”– Northeast utility serving over 200,000“Electronic delivery is a win for utilities andcustomers.”– Southeast utility serving about 4,000“Bill stuffers will save this small utility substantial timeand money.– Northwest utility serving about 2,500Comments – Email Addresses“It would be very, very unlikely that the Utility couldacquire the email addresses of all of its customers. Ibelieve a requirement to obtain email addresses forall customers would be onerous and, for all practicalpurposes, impossible at the present time.”– Northeast utility serving over 20,000“Collecting email addresses and maintaining them isa lot of work and would probably just mail them ifthose were the only option.”– Southeast utility serving over 40,000Conclusions1.Dramatic cost savings (potentially up to 70% of allCCR related costs) can be achieved throughallowing utilities to provide CCR notification througha URL on a bill or bill insert, leading to tens ofmillions of dollars saved.2.Methods requiring the collection of email addressesmay be difficult to impossible at some utilities,although other utilities report modest potential costsavings (less than bill/insert options).3.Substantial environmental impact of CCR productioncan be avoided through electronic delivery, withother additional benefits to both utilities andcustomers.Questions?Contact InformationAdam CarpenterRegulatory Analyst202-326-6126acarpenter@awwa.orgAlan RobersonDirector of Federal Relations202-326-6127aroberson@awwa.org