U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–232 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–564 

WATER AND ENERGY USE EFFICIENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

EXAMINE THE ROLE OF WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND ITS IMPACT ON 

ENERGY USE 

JULY 25, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bena, Daniel W., Senior Director, Sustainable Development, PepsiCo, Inc., 

Purchase, NY ........................................................................................................ 9 

Chaney, GP Russ, CEO, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, Ontario, CA .................................................................................... 13 

Dickinson, Mary Ann, President/CEO, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Chicago, 

IL ........................................................................................................................... 18 

Green, Henry L., AIA, President, National Institute of Building Sciences ........ 3 

Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Utah ............................................................. 2 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire .............................. 1 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 35 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 47 

(1) 

WATER AND ENERGY USE EFFICIENCY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne Shaheen 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good afternoon, everyone. 

Welcome, to our panelists. 

I am a little embarrassed that we are talking efficiency today, 

and it is freezing in this room. It is a challenge that I have 

throughout the capitol complex. So, hopefully, as the result of all 

of our efficiency discussions, we will be more efficient on the way 

we use air conditioning and heat in this building. 

But, I want to welcome all of you. Thank you for those of you 

attending this afternoon’s hearing. We are here to discuss water 

use efficiency, as it relates to energy consumption. 

We live in a world of constrained water supplies, with over 60 

percent of counties across the country facing drought as we speak 

today. The topic of water efficiency is a timely and urgent issue 

and one that really demands immediate attention. 

Water and energy are interconnected in many ways. Electricity 

generation requires substantial amounts of water, and pumping 

and treating water requires electricity. Within the context of efficiency, this water and energy nexus is perhaps most easily understood by the principle that every drop of water saved in the U.S. 

conserves energy, and every unit of energy saved conserves water. 

But, despite this clear link, efforts to improve efficient water and 

energy use have traditionally been handled separately. However, as 

we will hear today, there is substantial evidence to show that there 

is a need to unify these efforts into a more collaborative and comprehensive framework. 

For example, in one of the only detailed analyses completed to 

date addressing the energy-water nexus, the California Energy 

Commission found that nearly 20 percent of the State’s electricity 

and 30 percent of their natural gas consumption is used to move, 

treat, and heat water. 

Further, inefficiencies in our Nation’s infrastructure emphasize 

the need to update and improve water delivery systems. In fact, ac-
2 

cording to the National Institute of Building Sciences, nearly 60 

percent of electricity and 20 percent of water are lost before water 

is delivered. 

Today’s hearing will provide us with an opportunity to better understand water efficiency and how different techniques and strategies have been deployed across various sectors of our economy to 

save water. For example, typical water-efficient technologies are 

being incorporated in plumbing fixtures and fittings, residential appliances like washing machines and dishwashers, and wastewater 

treatment and water filtration systems. Codes and standards also 

play a significant role in the world of water efficiency. Building 

codes represent an important foundation for implementing programs and policies that encourage efficiency. 

Together, these emerging technologies and codes and standards 

are helping to make great improvements in our efforts to conserve 

water and energy. 

The private sector is really leading the way in this arena, finding 

that it is in their best interest to save water, not only because it 

helps their bottom line by saving costs, but also because consumers 

want more sustainable products. 

Finally, I am looking forward to hearing from our panelists about 

what they see as the barriers that currently exist to more fully deploying water-efficient techniques and technologies. 

I am very pleased to welcome today’s witnesses. Our panel includes: Mr. Henry Green, the President of the National Institute of 

Building Sciences; Mr. Daniel Bena, who is the Senior Director at 

PepsiCo; Mr. Russ Chaney, CEO of IAPMO Group; and Mary Ann 

Dickinson, President and CEO of the Alliance for Water Efficiency. 

I look forward to hearing all of your testimony, and we will recognize Ranking Member of the Water and Power Subcommittee, 

Senator Lee, for his opening comments, before we go to your testimony. 

Senator Lee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, and I also want to 

thank our witnesses who have joined us today. I look forward to 

hearing your different perspectives on how we can use our efforts 

to promote water use efficiency to also promote efficiency in energy 

use. 

Senator Shaheen has outlined very well how water and energy 

are inextricably connected. I am encouraged that our committee 

continues to look at how these two things are connected. 

Although the allocation of water is a State-driven process, 

through the years, the Federal Government has been involved in 

the development of various measures to reduce water and energy 

use. The Committee has considered ideas in the past that have 

helped reduce the amount of energy to produce water, as well as 

ways to reduce the amount of water needed to produce energy. 

The reliable development of water and energy constitutes something of a backbone of our economy. Safe, reliable, and cost-effective supplies of water and the energy cost of producing, treating, 

and cleaning the water will continue to be a critical driver for all 
3 

sectors of our economy, including agriculture, industry, and the domestic sector. 

In my State, in the State of Utah, energy production and water 

efficiency certainly go hand-in-hand. I believe this Committee can 

assist State and local governments with ideas as to how to more 

efficiently manage the connection between energy and water. 

I encourage our witnesses today to think outside the box on different options, to help expand our understanding of how water and 

energy are connected. 

In addition, I look forward to hearing their perspectives on the 

role that local, State, and Federal entities can play in helping consumers reduce both water and energy use. 

I would also like our witnesses to discuss the role that industry 

has played in developing technologies that have already reduced 

our water use, which, as I understand it, has led to the greatest 

reduction of energy use within the commercial, industrial, and even 

the domestic sector. 

Again, I look forward to hearing what our witnesses, Mr. Green, 

Mr. Bena, Mr. Chaney, and Ms. Dickinson, have to say about these 

issues here today, each of which is very important. 

I am going to have to step out in a few minutes. I apologize for 

that, but with your permission, Senator Shaheen, I will submit 

those in writing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Senator Lee. 

Mr. Green, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY L. GREEN, AIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCES 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Shaheen, and 

Ranking Member Lee, and the members of this committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. 

I am Henry Green and I am President of the National Institute 

of Building Sciences. The Institute was established in 1974 to serve 

as an authoritative source to make findings and advise the public 

and private sector on the use on building sciences and technology. 

The buildings are responsible today for about 40 percent of the 

Nation’s primary energy use. Three-quarters of the electricity produced is consumed in the building sector, representing over $300 

billion in expenditures. While these numbers alone are staggering, 

they do not reveal the associated impact on water resources. According to the U.S. GS, electrical energy is responsible for almost 

half of the Nation’s water withdrawals. Reduction in water use can 

also result in decreased energy demand. 

The California Energy Admission found that pumping and treating drinking water and wastewater represents 19 percent of the 

State’s electricity load. Consumer water heating represents 32 percent of its gas load. Few other States have done this kind of analysis, and no such national research exists today. 

More comprehensive building water use data is vital to the continued improvement of water management in buildings. EIA’s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey and the Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey provide a long record of energy use, 

but no such resource exists for water use. While CBECS and RECS 

are not perfect and have recently suffered funding issues, they re-
4 

main valuable resources in monitoring the progress of energy efficiency programs. 

Further information is lacking on the end use of water in commercial buildings. To advance plumbing codes and information development of water resource programs and pipe-sizing methodologies, researchers, manufacturers, and utilities, with Government 

support, should research and implement advanced metering and 

sub-metering technologies. Policymakers should provide leadership 

and direction in the development and support of research programs. The establishment of science-based metrics will allow a better understanding of how to best achieve energy and water use efficiencies. 

Benchmarking of energy use by commercial building owners has 

grown considerably. However, tools and recognition opportunities 

do not exist relative to water use. The lack of data for water use 

by building type and end use likely underlies the slow emergence 

of such programs. 

Surprisingly, many water utilities still charge flat rates, even in 

water-scarce areas. Construction codes and standards, State and 

local governments must require increased use of water metering. 

Installing meters and billing according to usage has been shown to 

be the single most effective water conservation measure a water 

utility can initiate. 

Currently, there are no Federal agency that has the mandate or 

ability to adequately consider all of the high-performance building 

attributes and support the numerous goals placed on the building 

community. Just for green buildings, which include elements of 

water and energy efficiency, GAO identified 94 initiatives in 11 

agencies. A cross-agency working group on building-related issues 

to develop holistic strategies for achieving national goals would be 

an incredible value. 

Water delivery infrastructure provides unique challenges that 

are not completely understood. Continued flow reductions may 

place the health and safety of occupants and the efficacy of plumbing systems at risk. Researchers need to better understand water 

use in buildings to balance the need for energy and water efficiency, while maintaining residual pressures for safety and performance concerns. 

EPA’s WaterSense program is an essential element of water-focused benchmarking initiatives, but it focuses solely on individual 

products. Such a focus does not assure water-efficient buildings. Increased funding for the WaterSense program can help facilitate the 

development of a comprehensive WaterSense program for buildings. 

Many institutional building owners have relied on ESCOs for 

them to determine how, in fact, they can save energy in their buildings. No such program exists today with respect to water usage. 

The obsession of using potable water for nearly all applications 

may not be suitable; however, no Federal regulation governs water 

quality or permissible utilization of non-potable water. 

In conclusion, there may be a national research program focused 

on understanding the complex relationships between energy and 

water, including production, infrastructure, training, and funding. 

Consistency of approach, appreciation of value, and mandates are 
5 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Water Supply and Use in the United States 

(2008). 2 Building Energy Data Book, http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/, Table 1.1.3 

3 Building Energy Data Book, http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/, Table 1.1.9 

4Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 

2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1344, 52 p. 

essential to ensuring the water-energy nexus is better understood 

and future decisions are made with an appreciation for the balance 

between energy and water considerations. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY L. GREEN, AIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE

OF BUILDING SCIENCES

Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on water efficiency, buildings, 

and the connection between water and energy. 

The National Institute of Building Sciences (Institute) was established by Congress in 1974 upon recognition of a lack of an authoritative national source to make 

findings and to advise both the public and private sectors on the use of building 

sciences and technology to achieve recognized goals (12 USC 1701j-2). 

To achieve its mission to support advances in building science and technology to 

improve the built environment, the Institute has established a diverse portfolio of 

councils and programs that engage building industry experts in examining and developing tools, technologies and practices to meet identified needs. This testimony 

reflects the diversity of water-related issues identified by many of our councils, from 

the Multihazard Mitigation Council and Sustainable Buildings Industry Council to 

the Consultative Council. 

Water and Energy Use in Buildings 

As defined by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), a high performance building ‘‘integrates and optimizes on a life cycle basis 

all major high performance attributes, including energy conservation, environment, 

safety, security, durability, accessibility, costbenefit, productivity, sustainability, 

functionality, and operational considerations.’’ While water is not explicitly mentioned, it is an essential consideration in many of these attributes. 

It is becoming increasingly obvious that water, like energy, will serve as a fundamental focus of building related policies. Recent drought conditions nationwide, including those in Texas and Georgia, water shortage declarations in Kentucky and 

fire prone landscapes across the country demonstrate the growing need to focus on 

how we use water. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that 36 states expect to experience local, regional or statewide water shortages by 2013.1 Just last 

week, the National Climatic Data Center reported that the nation is experiencing 

the largest drought since the 1950s. In June, about 55 percent of the country was 

in at least a moderate short-term drought-the highest level since December 1956- 

and at least 70 percent of the nation is in some state of drought. 

Americans use more water in the home than in any other country in the world, 

except Canada. Going forward, the U.S. Census Bureau expects the greatest percentage of regional population growth in areas of the country where water resources 

already are stressed. As will be demonstrated by my testimony and the testimony 

of others, a holistic focus on opportunities to use both water and energy efficiently 

will provide an economically efficient opportunity to use our resources wisely. 

As you may know, buildings are responsible for approximately 40 percent of the 

primary energy use in the United States.2 Almost three quarters of the electricity 

produced in the U.S. is consumed in the building sector and represents over $300 

billion in expenditures.3 While these numbers alone are staggering, they do not reveal the associated impact on water resources. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the generation of electricity is responsible for almost half of the nation’s water 

withdrawals.4 This equates to about 23 gallons per kilowatt hour generated. Therefore, any energy use avoided results in less water use. 

In addition, reductions in water use can result in decreased energy demand. Energy is consumed in the conveyance of water from the source to the point of treatment, the treatment process itself, the distribution of water to the point of use, the 

heating of water during use, and the wastewater treatment process. The California 
6 

Energy Commission found that 19 percent of the state’s electric energy load comes 

from the pumping and treatment of drinking water and wastewater, and 32 percent 

of its gas load is related to the heating of water by consumers. However, few other 

states have done this analysis, and there has been no national research into this 

important area. These values reveal the huge potential to achieve significant energy 

savings through improved water efficiency measures. 

Data and research on water use in the building sector is lacking and requires a 

focus at several scales of magnitude. While we have a long history of energy use 

data for the building stock in general, from programs like the Energy Information 

Administration’s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) and 

the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), no such resource exists for 

water use. While CBECS and RECS are not perfect and have recently suffered from 

funding issues, they remain a valuable resource in monitoring the progress of energy efficiency programs, facilitating changes in codes and standards, and establishing national goals. The need for more comprehensive building water use data is 

vital to the continued improvement of water management in buildings across the 

country. The next version of CBECS will include new data on water use, but more 

data and research is needed. 

In addition to the need for water usage data for the building stock as a whole, 

water use benchmark data by distinct building types do not exist. Establishment of 

such a dataset could result in development of comprehensive benchmark data that 

supplies a general range of ‘‘water use intensity’’ values represented as gallons per 

square foot. Water use intensity values can be used within codes and standards to 

develop performance-based standards, by water utilities to identify large and inefficient users, by water auditors to develop water management strategies, and by federal and local governments to craft water use policies. This benchmark data also 

would provide a means to compare the water use of one building against another 

to determine a relative level of water efficiency. 

Further, there is a lack of information on the end uses of water in commercial 

buildings and very little research has been conducted on the topic. Thus, while the 

aggregate usage data that can be obtained by traditional metering of various building types is important and will result in significant water savings, the proper sizing 

of plumbing systems and the implementation of other water efficiency strategies requires a greater understanding of the use patterns associated with discrete fixtures, 

appliances and equipment. Such research would monitor, in real-time, water consuming equipment and processes in commercial buildings, such as plumbing fixtures; commercial kitchen equipment; irrigation; laboratory/medical equipment; 

heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and ornamental fountains. This data could be examined to understand patterns in water end use and 

to support development of metrics that provide benchmarks on water end uses for 

distinct building types. To advance plumbing codes and inform development of water 

efficiency programs and proper pipe sizing methodologies, researchers, manufacturers, and utilities (with governmental support) should research and implement advanced metering and sub-metering technologies that can provide greater insight into 

how water is used in various building types. Building owners, designers, operations 

and maintenance staff, policymakers, and codes and standards developers could utilize such information to more accurately estimate water use by building type and 

the potential savings of efficiency opportunities. 

As a first step to development of a water use benchmark and resulting opportunities to reduce water use, construction codes and standards must require increased 

use of water meters in all building types. This is especially true for multi-family residential buildings where residents currently lack financial incentive to repair or replace leaky pipes, plumbing fixtures and appliances. In addition, requiring water 

meters for specific use applications within a building will provide building facility 

managers with an effective water efficiency feedback mechanism. These include: 

makeup water to cooling towers, evaporative condensers, larger evaporative coolers, 

fluid coolers, large boilers, and makeup water supplies to swimming pools. 

Given the value of water to the viability and resilience of communities, the construction community calls on this committee, Congress at large, and the Administration to provide leadership and direction towards the development and support of research programs that will advance the establishment of accepted science-based 

metrics and allow better understanding of how to best achieve energy and water use 

efficiencies in buildings. 

Challenges in Reducing Water and Energy Use 

Currently, no federal agency has the mandate or the ability to adequately consider all high-performance building attributes and support the numerous goals 

placed upon the building community. Considering just green building programs 
7 

5GAO-12-79, Green Building: Federal Initiatives for the Nonfederal Sector Could Benefit from 

More Interagency Collaboration, November 2011 6The Alliance for Water Efficiency—2011 

(which include elements of water and energy efficiency), the Government Accountability Office identified 94 initiatives housed in 11 agencies.5 Opportunities to increase collaboration across all building issues and within each individual issue area 

are necessary. A cross-agency working-group on building-related issues that could 

develop holistic strategies for achieving national goals would be incredibly valuable. 

Unlike the somewhat straightforward nature of the energy delivery infrastructure, water delivery infrastructure provides unique challenges that are not completely understood. While net-zero energy use does not generally impact the safety 

inherent in existing delivery infrastructure, net-zero water efforts require careful 

consideration. Existing water infrastructure and plumbing is based on historic flow 

rates. Decisions to implement some water efficiency strategies that reduce water 

consumption levels without fully understanding the systemic implications of reducing flows in water supply pipes and sanitary systems can result in unintended consequences. 

Continued flow reductions on both water supply and sanitary drain systems, without fully understanding the implications of these flow reductions, place the health 

and safety of occupants and the efficacy of plumbing systems at risk. Researchers 

need to better understand water use in buildings to properly size water pipes to balance the needs for energy and water efficiency with the need to maintain residual 

pressures for safety and other performance concerns. 

While many water purveyors have fully metered systems, many water agencies 

surprisingly still charge customers flat rates, even in water-scarce regions of the 

United States. State and local governments must immediately begin to require that 

all buildings be metered for water use, at the gross building level at a minimum, 

but, ideally, sub-metered for all significant water uses within the building. Installing meters and billing according to usage has been shown to be the single most effective water conservation measure a water utility can initiate. As recently measured by utilities, unmetered water consumption is reduced 15 percent to 30 percent 

when utilities implement metering and commodity rates.6

Benchmarking of energy use by commercial building owners has grown considerably through the development of the Environmental Protection Agency’s EnergyStar 

for Buildings Program and its Portfolio Manager Tool; the passage of rating and disclosure requirements in cities like Seattle, New York, Washington DC, and Philadelphia; and recognition programs such as ASHRAE’s Building Energy Quotient, Building Owners and Managers Association 360 program, the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes Program. Similar tools and recognition opportunities 

do not exist relative to water use. The lack of benchmarking data for water use by 

building type and end use likely underlies the slow emergence of such programs. 

Many institutional building owners, including governments, universities and hospitals, have been working with energy service companies (ESCOs) to implement and 

finance energy efficiency improvements where costs are paid through the resultant 

energy savings. Few programs of this type exist to finance water efficiency improvements. Many private companies may be unwilling to enter this market because of 

the lack of benchmark data and an ability to understand how potential upgrades 

will ultimately affect water savings and the associated cost savings. Further, the diversity of pricing structures for water and the relatively low cost may not make 

such efforts economically viable. 

The lack of a national policy or plan for addressing water related issues has kept 

the need and opportunity in the background. Without a holistic view of our nation’s 

water needs, policymakers at all levels of government will have difficulty making 

appropriate and responsive decisions. The Institute’s Consultative Council has recommended that the federal government prioritize, coordinate, and support development of a national water strategy prior to the emergence of inevitable water shortages. 

EPA’s WaterSense program is an essential element of the development of a water 

focused benchmarking initiative, but focuses solely on individual pieces of equipment and not the use of water throughout a building. Increased funding for the 

WaterSense program can help to facilitate increased product coverage and potential 

development of a WaterSense for Buildings Program. 

WaterSense designations only exist for a few product types. Existing rating systems like LEED and Green Globes only require efficient plumbing fixtures and do 

not consider all other indoor water consuming equipment in buildings, such as commercial kitchen equipment, cooling towers and water-consuming medical equipment, 
8 

7The Carbon Footprint of Water, Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspiel and Wendy Wilson (2009). 

as well as non-critical functions, such as ornamental fountains. These partial requirements on their own do not assure water-efficient buildings because no benchmark data exists upon which to generate accurate and defensible performance-based 

goals. Green building programs in general provide specification criteria without providing the ‘‘how-to’’ information on effective implementation and integration within 

buildings. Codes and standards developers and professional organizations work to 

fill this gap. Model code developers have already developed comprehensive ‘‘green’’ 

building or plumbing codes that, while prescriptive in nature, do address commercial and institutional applications. Ensuring cooperation across these organizations 

and their criteria can help realize the achievement of water efficient buildings. 

Education and training on the connection between energy and water and the opportunities to reduce their use is essential to achieving national goals in these 

areas. Specific audiences include operations and maintenance personnel, architects 

and engineers, state and local building departments, policymakers and building occupants. Buildings have a complex life cycle, from concept, design and construction 

to commissioning, occupancy, modification/renovation and deconstruction. Education 

and training within the building professions must reflect this complexity, including 

the specific skill needs at each point in the building’s life cycle. These lifecycle considerations include efficient use of energy and water through reduced waste and demand management, improved occupant comfort and health, and upgrading the 

human-building system interface. In each time period within the building’s life 

cycle, particular segments of the building community must be engaged and have the 

requisite knowledge to adequately address the unique needs within that time period. 

While the Institute focuses primarily on the built environment, we recognize that 

buildings do not exist in isolation; they rely on connections to other sectors of the 

economy. Such connections include utilities, finance and manufacturing. Understanding these connections is essential to the design, construction and operation of 

buildings, so I will focus some of my testimony on illuminating these connections. 

Efficiency and conservation methods within buildings should continue to be employed in construction designs. However, the backbone of the nation’s electrical and 

water delivery systems also needs significant repair and improvement. With nearly 

60 percent of electricity and 20 percent of water being lost before it ever enters service, significant savings will not be realized until the delivery systems become more 

efficient and waste is reduced. Aging supply lines need to be replaced to ensure 

proper delivery of both potable water and water for fire protection. Ten percent of 

the nation’s water distribution system is over 80 years old and 30 percent is between 40 and 80 years old. Nearly 2 trillion gallons of water is lost annually 

through leaks in water pipes. This annual loss equates to an estimated $1 to $2 billion. Aside from the cost implications, it is estimated that a five percent reduction 

in water distribution system leakage would save 313 million kWh of electricity and 

avoid approximately 225,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually.7 The American 

Society of Civil Engineers, in a 2009 report, gave the U.S. drinking water and 

wastewater system a D-. The electrical infrastructure faired only slightly better by 

earning a D+. Both systems require significant investments in technology and distribution systems simply to maintain their current service, let alone to keep up with 

growing demands. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates from 2002, it will take $335 

billion over the next 20 years to repair and update water distribution systems and 

an additional $300 billion to do the same for sewer systems. The process of repairing 

the nation’s crumbling infrastructure can create tens of thousands of long-term 

American jobs. The United States Conference of Mayors estimates that every job 

created through rebuilding water systems creates more than 3.6 jobs elsewhere and 

every dollar invested in water infrastructure adds $6.35 to the national economy. 

In an era of constrained water supplies, the very conservative approach in the 

United States of using potable water for nearly all applications may not be sustainable. Reusing lightly contaminated graywater collected onsite reduces the quantity 

of potable water consumed by the facility as non-potable supplies replace potable 

supplies. Additionally, sewer systems receive less water. The same occurs for reclaimed/recycled water, where a portion of the wastewater generated by entire communities is collected, treated and returned to facilities for non-potable reuse. This 

reduces the influent collected for treatment to potable water standards and also reduces the effluent discharged to the environment. Treatment of non-potable water 

also is less energy-intensive than treatment to potable water standards. Rainwater 

harvesting also offsets potable water consumption and has the added benefit of reducing the quantity of stormwater needing onsite management. 
9 

Interest in the use of non-potable water for various applications has surged in recent years, driven in part by the emergence of new stretch codes and standards, as 

well as the recognition that water is a finite resource. Numerous applications are 

available, including water closet and urinal flushing, cooling tower makeup, automatic fire suppression systems, landscape irrigation and fountains. Non-potable 

water may include rainwater, graywater, reclaimed water and non-potable water 

from various other alternative sources. Currently, however, there are no federal regulations governing water quality or permissible utilizations for non-potable water. 

In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency released EPA/625/R-04/108, Guidelines for Water Reuse. While that document is instructive, it is not binding. The 

Guidelines for Water Reuse is currently undergoing an update intended to further 

streamline it and incorporate the latest findings. The update is slated for completion 

by October 2012. The regulations on how non-potable water can be used in applications inside and outside of buildings are highly variable throughout the nation. 

Many states do not even have such regulations. The lack of uniform regulations is 

currently the greatest impediment to more wide-spread use of non-potable water in 

buildings and on building sites. 

Thermal insulation is routinely used to improve the thermal efficiency of hot 

water delivery systems. Although specific requirements vary, all major building energy codes currently require some pipe insulation on domestic hot water (DHW) piping. DHW piping insulation requirements have been based on the energy savings 

associated with reduced heat loss from piping systems. However, thermal insulation 

also helps conserve water by reducing the time it takes from the initial demand for 

water (turning on the tap) until the water is delivered to the demand point at the 

required temperature. A study is needed to quantify the potential energy and water 

savings associated with increasing the use of pipe insulation. 

In conclusion, there must be a national research program directed to understand 

the complex relationship between energy and water, including production, infrastructure, training and funding. Consistency of approach, consistency of appreciation 

of value and consistency of mandates are essential elements to ensuring the water 

/ energy nexus is better understood and future decisions are made with an appreciation for the balance between energy and water considerations. 

As the entity charged by Congress to provide an authoritative source for findings 

and advice to the public and private sector on the use of building science and technology to achieve national goals, the Institute is pleased to offer its expertise to the 

Subcommittee, Congress at-large and federal agencies. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bena. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL W. BENA, SENIOR DIRECTOR, 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, PEPSICO, INC., PURCHASE, NY 

Mr. BENA. Thank you Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member 

Lee, and other distinguished members and guests. I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak to you on behalf of PepsiCo and our environmental sustainability efforts, particularly as they relate to 

strengthening water use efficiencies. 

My name is Dan Bena and I am the Senior Director of Sustainable Development for PepsiCo, a global food and beverage leader 

with net revenues of more than $65 billion and nearly 300,000 associates worldwide, including more than 100,000 of whom are employed in the United States. 

PepsiCo employees are united around a principle known as ‘‘performance with purpose’’, a shared commitment to sustainable 

growth through investments in a healthier future for both people 

and our planet. 

We have made several public commitments around environmental sustainability based on the principle of performance with 

purpose. Particularly germane to this hearing is the progress we 

have made in water conservation. By the end of 2011, 4 years 

early, we exceeded our system-wide goal to improve water use efficiency by 20 percent per unit of production by 2015. 
10 

This success and the strategies driving it have been recognized 

across the globe. For example, earlier this year, PepsiCo received 

the U.S. Water Prize from the Clean Water America Alliance, and 

next month, are proud to be the recipient of Stockholm Industry 

Water Award. 

We have also improved our energy use efficiency by 8.2 percent 

from a 2006 baseline. These efficiencies represent a savings of almost $32 million for 2011 and correspond to approximately 1.5 million megawatt hours of thermal of electric energy reductions, 

enough energy to supply nearly 100,000 U.S. homes for a year. 

One of the ways we continue to achieve these results is through 

the broad-scale deployment of what we call ReCon, Resource Conservation, an innovative system used to improve energy and water 

use efficiency in our manufacturing facilities. The ReCon process 

involves auditing our energy and water use streams within the 

plant, assigning relative values to each, and then focusing in on 

what can be improved, using best practices employed throughout 

PepsiCo. 

It is also important to mention that over the last 8 years, 

PepsiCo’s partnership and relationship with the U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR program has been very strong. We have been recognized as partner of the year in energy management in 2007 and 

partner of the year in sustained excellence in 2008, 2009, 2010, 

2011, and 2012. 

Our energy management program has, in fact, been highlighted in the U.S. EPA’s public service announcement, as saving $179 million, 20 trillion BTUs, and eliminating 3 billion pounds of carbon 

dioxide since 1999. 

Recognition is wonderful, but collaboration is crucial to resolving 

the magnitude of the global crises we face today. In this context, 

I cite the progress of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, a voluntary technical coalition of leading global beverage 

companies. 

Over the 3-year period, from 2008 to 2010, the industry aggregate water use ration improved by 9 percent, avoiding the use of 

approximately 39 billion liters of water in 2010. That is enough 

water to supply the entire population of New York City for 8 

straight days. 

However, water and energy use in our food and beverage facilities is only a small part of the water and energy picture. Agriculture, in fact, represents 70 percent of water use globally, 30 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and 40 percent of 

worldwide employment. To improve resource use in agriculture not 

only has a significant, positive impact on our environment, but is 

critical to PepsiCo’s business. 

One way PepsiCo is positively impacting resource use is through 

irrigation. Evolving our irrigation methods, from flood irrigation to 

pivot to drip can conserve in excess of 70 percent of on-farm water 

use. We are also piloting innovative technologies, such as those developed with Cambridge and Columbia Universities, which have 

the potential to conserve billions of gallons of water in agriculture. 

We have automated the direct seeding of rice process, growing a 

staple food crop, using 20 percent less water and 70 percent fewer 

greenhouse gas emissions. 
11 

With specific regard to the nexus of water and energy, I close by 

sharing the example of our journey to near net zero: running a facility primarily on renewable energy resources and recycled water, 

while producing nearly zero waste. Using innovative technologies, 

our Casa Grande, Arizona facility is generating two-thirds of all energy used from renewable sources and is working toward the goals 

of 75 percent of the water to be recycled, 50 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions, and an 80 percent reduction in the use 

of natural gas. These results are not the product of imposed regulation; they are the result of understanding the nexus between business value and social performance. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and thank Chairwoman Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee for allowing us to share 

PepsiCo’s perspectives on its environmental sustainability efforts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bena follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL W. BENA, SENIOR DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, PEPSICO, INC., PURCHASE, NY 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bingaman and Ranking 

Member Murkowski for their important work on this Committee. I would like to 

specifically thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee 

for holding this hearing and inviting PepsiCo to talk about its efforts to reduce energy usage and improve water efficiency. 

My name is Dan Bena, and I am the Senior Director of Sustainable Development 

for PepsiCo, the largest food and beverage company in North America and second 

globally, with net revenues of more than $65 billion and a product portfolio that includes 22 brands that generate more than $1 billion each in annual retail sales. 

With nearly 300,000 associates worldwide—over 100,000 of which are employed in 

the United States— and serving consumers in more countries and territories than 

the United Nations has member States, PepsiCo’s people are united by what we call 

Perfounance with Purpose. Performance with a Purpose is a principle through which 

PepsiCo is committed to sustainable growth by investing in a healthier future for 

people and our planet. We believe this means a more successful future for PepsiCo. 

In this context, we have made several public commitments around environmental 

sustainability. Specifically, to: 

• help conserve global water supplies, especially in water-stressed areas, and provide access to safe water; 

• continue to make our packaging increasingly sustainable, minimizing our mpact 

on the environment; 

• work to eliminate solid waste sent to landfills from our production facilities; 

work to achieve an absolute reduction in GHG emissions across our global businesses; and, 

• continue to support sustainable agriculture by expanding best practices with 

our growers and suppliers. 

Particularly germane to the focus of this subcommittee is the progress we have 

made in the area of water conservation. We established a system-wide goal in 2006 

to improve our water use efficiency by 20 percent by 2015, and I am proud to advise 

that by the end of 2011, we exceeded that goal—four years earlier than our target. 

This progress is being recognized in a number of ways such as PepsiCo’s receipt of 

the US Water Prize this year from the Clean Water America Alliance, and receipt 

of the Stockholm Industry Water Award. 

We have also improved our energy use efficiency by 8.2 percent from a 2006 baseline. This represents an estimated $32 MM savings in 2011, which corresponds to 

approximately 1.5 million MWH of thermal and electric energy. This is equivalent 

to the average annual energy consumption for nearly 100,000 US homes. 

PepsiCo’s vehicle fleet has and will continue to play a critical role in the achievement of our energy reduction targets. For example, in 2008, our Frito-Lay business 

in the United States set a goal to reduce fossil fuel dependency 50 percent by 2020 

and become the most fuel efficient fleet in North America. Over the last four years, 

with a portfolio of solutions tied to people, process, and technology, Frito-Lay has 

reduced fuel usage by 14 percent and has built a glide path to the 50 percent reduction. This 14 percent reduction in fuel usage from Frito-Lay North America elimi-
12 

* All addendums have been retained in subcommittee files. 

nated 6,600,000 gallons of gasoline, which is equivalent to taking more than 11,000 

cars off the road. 

One of the ways we continue to achieve these results is through the broad-scale 

deployment of ReCon (Resource Conservation)—an innovative system used to improve energy and water use efficiency in our manufacturing facilities. Through the 

ReCon process, we audit our energy and water management practices, compare all 

energy and water uses and costs, and assign relative values to each in order to zero 

in on what can be improved. Then we make adjustments based on best practices 

used throughout PepsiCo. 

Since 2008, PepsiCo has executed a strategic engagement program with suppliers 

in North America, and by the end of 2011 the program involved 50 suppliers representing over 120 facilities. These suppliers leveraged the ReCon program to deliver a single-year 2.5 percent improvement in thermal energy efficiency, 7 percent 

improvement in electrical energy efficiency and an 18.7 percent reduction in wasteto-landfill. This corresponds to an estimated productivity improvement of nearly $2 

million in 2011. 

Throughout the last eight years, PepsiCo’s partnership and relationship with the 

EPA Energy Star program has been very strong. PepsiCo has been an active participant with the Food Processing Focus Team and has spoken at a number of Energy 

Star events. Our Energy Management Program has been highlighted in the EPA’s 

Public Service Announcements (see Addendum One*). The EPA’s Guidelines for Energy Management have been used as the foundation of PepsiCo’s successful internal 

and external Energy Management/Sustainability programs. And, as a direct result 

of PepsiCo’s Supplier/Co-Packer Outreach Program, more than 150 additional companies have joined the Energy Star Program. 

Since joining the EPA Energy Star program, PepsiCo has been recognized with 

awards for Partner of the Year in Energy Management in 2007 and Partner of the 

Year in Sustained Excellence in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. 

Recognition is great, but no single company can alone resolve the magnitude of 

the global crises we face today, which is why collaboration and partnership are so 

critical for lasting solutions and impact. In this context, I cite the progress of the 

Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER). The Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable is a technical coalition of leading global beverage companies 

working together to advance environmental sustainability within the beverage sector. Formed in 2006, BIER aims to accelerate sector change and create meaningful 

impact on environmental sustainability, including water efficiency, matters. 

Through development and sharing of industry-specific analytical methods, best practice sharing, and direct stakeholder engagement, BIER accelerates the process of 

analysis to sustainable solution development. 

Each year, the industry water dataset continues to grow in size, with 2011 representing the most robust report to date, including over 1,600 facilities distributed 

across six continents. Analyses were conducted to determine industry water use, 

production, and water use ratio over a three year period from 2008-2010. Over this 

period, the industry aggregate water use ratio improved by 9 percent, avoiding the 

use of approximately 39 billion liters of water in 2010. To put this in context, this 

is enough water to supply the entire population of New York City for eight days 

(see Addendum Two). 

However, water and energy use in our food and beverage facilities is only a small 

part of the picture. Agriculture represents approximately 70 percent of water use 

globally, and as high as 90 percent in developing economies; 30 percent of the 

world’s greenhouse gas emissions; and 40 percent of the worldwide employment. To 

improve resource use in agriculture is to have significant positive impact on the environment. 

Improved resource use also makes good business sense. For example, six out of 

10 of PepsiCo’s top-sourced raw materials are agricultural. We conduct agricultural 

operations in 30 countries. For PepsiCo, maintaining a sustainable supply chain is 

paramount to minimizing risks to our business operations. 

One of the ways that we are maintaining a sustainable supply chain is by focusing on irrigation. The irrigation methods employed by PepsiCo are constantly evolving to better meet the needs of local communities. Irrigation methods such as flood, 

pivot, and drip can conserve in excess of 70 percent of farm water use. We are piloting technology such as i-crop, developed in partnership with Cambridge University, 

and low-cost tensiometers, developed in partnership with the PepsiCo Foundation 

and the Earth Institute, both of which have the potential to conserve billions of gallons of water in agriculture. 
13 

We are also testing innovative approaches to reduce on-farm greenhouse gas emissions. One example is with our US Tropicana business, where the single biggest contributor to Tropicana’s carbon footprint wasn’t the transport of the juice to stores 

or the energy required to operate a modern citrus farm. Rather, it was the fertilizer 

used to grow the orange trees. A great deal of natural gas is used to make nitrogen 

fertilizer, and a great deal of fertilizer is used on citrus trees—so much that fertilizer accounted for 15 percent of the total carbon footprint for our orange juice. We 

have partnered with a company called Yara, to pilot an alternative fertilizer. If successful, the greener fertilizers could lower the carbon footprint of PepsiCo’s citrus 

growers by as much as 50 percent and reduce the total carbon footprint of Tropicana 

orange juice by up to 12 percent. Given how much fertilizer is used throughout the 

U.S. farming system as a whole—more than 13 million tons of nitrogen in 2007 

alone—a greener way to help plants grow could put a serious dent in U.S. carbon 

emissions (see Addendum Three). 

Finally, understanding this subcommittee’s interest in the nexus between water 

and energy, I share two initiatives at PepsiCo of which we are especially proud. 

The first is our snacks manufacturing facility in Casa Grande, Arizona. A few 

years ago, Frito-Lay set out on an ambitious mission to transform an existing facility so that it would run primarily on renewable energy sources and recycled water 

while producing nearly zero waste. We called this effort ‘‘near net zero.’’ We chose 

the Casa Grande, Arizona facility because of its location, where sunlight is plentiful 

and water conservation is important, and its size—big enough to be effective, yet 

small enough to be manageable. Frito-Lay invested in and implemented a combination of technologies to enable Casa Grande to significantly reduce the use of key 

natural resources and reduce the site’s overall environmental footprint. Using innovative technologies, our Casa Grande facility is generating two-thirds of all energy 

used from renewable sources and is working towards significant reductions. Specifically, 75 percent of the water is recycled, 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions, and an 80 percent reduction in the use of natural gas (see Addendum 

Four). 

Finally, we understand the importance of lasting change being within reach only 

when large-scale policies are enacted. In Gujarat, India, PepsiCo Foundation 

partnered with the Columbia University Water Center to test a new approach to 

positively impact food security, water security, and climate security—all in one 

model. The details are supplied in a white paper as Addendum Five, but, in short 

this paper presents the results of the Columbia Water Center’s study of the severe 

groundwater crisis in the Mehsana region of Northern Gujarat, India. The study 

concludes that the current pattern of groundwater exploitation is both costly for the 

state and unsustainable for farmers, and could lead to the complete failure of agriculture in the area within a few years if left unchecked. The study was conducted 

as the first phase of a multi-phased project designed to help conserve water and energy while improving farmer incomes in North Gujarat. Future papers will outline 

the initial outcomes of the area pilot project along with resulting recommendations 

for policymakers in the area. 

Again, I would like to thank Chairwoman Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee for 

giving PepsiCo this opportunity to share its perspectives. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bena. 

Mr. Chaney. 

STATEMENT OF GP RUSS CHANEY, CEO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS, 

ONTARIO, CA 

Mr. CHANEY. Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee, and 

members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to sit 

before the Subcommittee on Water and Power to discuss the critically important issue of water use, water efficiency, and the important impact water efficiency has upon our country’s overall energy 

use. 

My name is Russ Chaney and I am the CEO of the IAPMO 

Group. The IAPMO Group led by the International Association of 

Plumbing and Mechanical Officials was founded in 1926. With 

membership of approximately 8,300 members, IAPMO publishes 

the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the 
14 

Uniform Solar Energy Code, and the Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa 

and Hot Tub Code, all designated by ANSI, as American National 

Standards. 

In 2010, IAPMO published the first green construction code in 

the United States, the Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement. The Green Supplement is a separate document from the 

Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and it establishes requirements for a green building, water efficiency, and water reuse, 

applicable to plumbing, mechanical, and solar energy systems. 

The Green Supplement serves as a resource for many progressive 

jurisdictions across the country that are implementing green building and water efficiency programs. By adhering to the water efficiency provisions found within the Green Supplement, 35 percent 

water savings over baseline code and EPAct level requirements can 

be obtained in both residential and commercial buildings. 

Just last month, IAPMO was invited to join the United States 

Water Partnership. This partnership, which was unveiled by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, includes nearly all Federal agencies 

and many other notable organizations. 

IAMPO recognizes that, especially here in the United States, the 

energy embedded in water is both grossly under-recognized as an 

area of opportunity where energy savings can be cost-effectively realized, and is underutilized as a source of clean, renewable energy. 

In January 2012, the U.S. EPA officially delegated the development of a heat metering standard to a partnership of ASTM International and IAPMO. This standard will greatly assist the country 

in realizing the benefits, and improving the acceptance, of solar 

thermal, radiant, and other hydronic technologies. 

IAPMO also recognizes that the only way for an integrated water 

use strategy to be successful is to minimize consumption and maximize recovery. Fully developed codes and standards addressing the 

safe installation and use of water reuse technologies, such as rainwater catchment systems, gray water systems, and systems—municipally supplied reclaimed water will be critical to eliminate barriers, while maintaining health and safety. 

However, much more needs to be done to address our water and 

energy needs. We ask that the Federal Government develop incentives for State and local governments to adopt and properly enforce 

comprehensive Green Plumbing codes. 

We ask that the Federal Government support the research and 

development of less invasive water metering and sub-metering 

technologies, and then deploy these technologies to better understand the complex water use patterns associated with various 

building types. This will yield very significant water and energy efficiencies, through smarter-sizing of our buildings’ plumbing systems. 

We ask that the Federal Government consider incentives to 

building owners that voluntarily have their buildings audited, and 

then implement the results of those audits to reduce their energy 

and water use. 

We ask the Federal Government to provide incentives for State 

and local governments to require water utilities to conduct independent leakage audits and to report the percentage of water leaking from their distribution systems, along with a plan for the re-
15 

pair and update of those systems, that demonstrate excessive leakage. 

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our leaking 

water infrastructure wastes over 7 billion gallons of potable water 

every day. Now, please keep in mind that this is water that has 

been treated to strict and expensive drinking water standards. 

Frankly, we find it is unacceptable that we ask our Nation’s manufacturers to continually trim tenths of a gallon off the consumption 

levels of their products, at considerable cost to both them and the 

end consumer, when so much water is being lost between the point 

of treatment and the point of use. This is an area that must be improved upon. 

The Federal Government should become more actively engaged 

in the development of necessary research programs and provide financial support for scientific study to ensure that increasingly precious water supplies are used as efficiently as possible in buildings, 

while maintaining health and safety. 

Finally, we ask that the Federal Government support the integration of IT-based networks, into both our Nation’s water distribution systems and within our build—our Nation’s buildings, in order 

to help create smart water systems as part of a national water 

strategy. 

As you know, there is no substitute for water. While we will always be able to use the incredible ingenuity of the American people 

to find alternate sources of energy as our needs and circumstances 

evolve, we must recognize that there simply is no substitute for 

water. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GP RUSS CHANEY, CEO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS, ONTARIO, CA 

Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee and members of the subcommittee, 

we appreciate the opportunity to sit before the Subcommittee on Water and Power 

to discuss the critically important issue of water use, water efficiency and the important impact water efficiency has upon our country’s overall energy use. 

My name is Russ Chaney, Chief Executive Officer for the IAPMO Group. The 

IAPMO Group, led by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, was founded in 1926, and remains the pre-eminent code development, product certification and testing, and training/curriculum providing organization for 

plumbing, mechanical, swimming pool, solar and radiant heating industries in the 

United States and around the world. With approximately 8,300 members, IAPMO 

remains the only standards body where plumbing, mechanical and solar codes are 

developed employing a true and fully voluntary consensus process. We proudly publish our flagship model codes, the Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical 

Code, Uniform Solar Energy Code and Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub 

Code, as designated as American National Standards, accredited by the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI). 

IAPMO’s membership is comprised of plumbing and mechanical professionals, inspectors, engineers, code officials, manufacturers of plumbing, mechanical and building products, plumbing and mechanical contractors, water and energy efficiency experts—all areas and expertise required in the design, installation and maintenance 

of our country’s plumbing, mechanical, solar and hydronic systems. 

In addition to providing code development assistance, The IAPMO Group provides 

critically needed training and education programs, including the Green Plumbers 

USA program, an industry-leading plumbing and mechanical product testing and 

certification program, a building products evaluation service and a manufacturerpreferred quality assurance program. 
16 

In 2010, IAPMO published the first green construction code in the United States, 

the IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement. The Green Supplement is a separate document from the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical codes and 

establishes requirements for green building, water efficiency and water reuse applicable to plumbing, mechanical, and solar energy systems. The Green Supplement 

serves as a resource for many progressive jurisdictions across the country that are 

implementing green building and water-efficiency programs. By adhering to the 

water-efficiency provisions found within the Green Supplement, 35 percent water 

savings over baseline code and EPAct level requirements can be attained in both 

residential and commercial buildings. 

Each component of The IAPMO Group works toward playing an integral part in 

protecting the health of people everywhere and toward making the most efficient 

use of our nation’s most precious resource. 

Just last month, IAPMO was invited to join a critically important initiative on 

international water efforts in the United States Water Partnership. This partnership, which was originally unveiled by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March, 

includes partners such Coca-Cola, Proctor and Gamble, the Water Institute at the 

University of North Carolina, nearly all federal agencies and many other notable organizations. The purpose of this partnership is: 

‘‘To ensure sustainable and equitable water management that benefits people and 

our environment through: 

• Improving access and quality of service for water, sanitation and hygiene. 

• Advancing integrated water resource management. 

• Increasing efficiency and productivity of water use. 

• Improving governance through stronger public and private institutions, policies 

and processes.’’ 

This is a very exciting initiative that will help address water problems on a global 

scale. 

IAPMO is proud to be a contributor to the National Institute of Building Science’s 

Consultative Council by chairing the council’s Water and Energy Efficiency Topical 

Committee, and we fully support the recommendations put forth by the council as 

published in the institute’s Annual Report to the President of the United States. 

IAPMO recognizes that, especially here in the United States, the energy embedded in water is both grossly under-recognized as an area of opportunity where energy savings can be cost effectively realized and is underutilized as a source of 

clean, renewable energy. 

On Jan. 20, 2012, the U.S. EPA officially delegated the development of a Heat 

Metering standard to a partnership of ASTM International and IAPMO. Since that 

time, IAPMO and ASTM International have worked to expand the scope of their 

combined efforts on solar thermal technologies in support of the Heat Metering 

standardization project. These efforts will greatly assist the country in realizing the 

benefits—and improving the acceptance—of solar thermal, radiant and other 

hydronic technologies. 

IAPMO also recognizes that that the only way for an integrated water-use strategy to be successful is to minimize consumption and maximize recovery. Fully developed codes and standards addressing the safe installation and use of water-reuse 

technologies such as rainwater catchment systems, gray water systems and municipally supplied reclaimed water will be critical to eliminate barriers while maintaining health and safety. In 2012, we formally adopted all technical provisions on water 

reuse from our Green Supplement into our baseline model code, the Uniform Plumbing Code. As such, the Uniform Plumbing Code became the first baseline code to 

provide guidance on the safe use of these technologies, along with a path of compliance for the installation of these systems in a model construction code. 

As significant as these accomplishments—and the combined accomplishments of 

all the dedicated and talented people who comprise our nation’s standards and codes 

developing organizations—are, much more needs to be done to address our water 

and energy needs. Specifically, we respectfully ask that the federal government consider the following actions that will greatly assist the private sector in moving forward toward a more water and energy efficient future: 

• We ask that the federal government develop incentives for state and local governments to adopt and properly enforce comprehensive green plumbing codes. 

As good as our nation’s codes are, if they are not adopted and enforced at the 

local level, the country cannot realize the efficiencies these codes provide. 

• We ask that the federal government support the research and development of 

less invasive water metering and sub-metering emerging technologies and then 

deploy these technologies to better understand complex water-use patterns asso-
17 

ciated with various building types. This will yield very significant water and energy efficiencies through smarter sizing of our building’s plumbing systems. • Widespread energy and water auditing will provide data and information required to establish more accurate baseline metrics and will help prioritize the 

installation of energy- and water-efficient technologies that provide the best return on investment and real-time or near real-time feedback to building owners. 

We ask that the federal government consider incentives for building owners who 

voluntarily have their buildings audited and implement the results of those audits to reduce their energy and water use. • We ask that the federal government provide incentives for state and local governments to require water utilities to conduct independent leakage audits and 

report the percentage of water leaking from their distribution systems, along 

with a plan for the repair and update of systems that demonstrate excessive 

leakage. Much is known about the needs of our aging water infrastructure and 

it is critically important that these issues be addressed. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our water infrastructure rates a grade of Dminus with over 7 billion gallons of potable water a day wasted due to leaking 

water infrastructure. Keep in mind, that this is water that has been treated to 

strict and expensive drinking water standards and contains all of the embedded 

energy embodied in such treatment and delivery. Frankly, we find it unacceptable that we ask our nation’s manufacturers to continually trim tenths of a gallon off of the consumption levels of their products—at considerable cost to both 

them and to the end consumer—when so much water is being lost between the 

point of treatment and the point of use. This is an area where improvement is 

necessary. • The federal government should become more actively engaged in the development of necessary research programs and provide financial support for scientific 

study to ensure that increasingly precious water supplies are used as efficiently 

as possible in buildings while maintaining health and safety. IAPMO, along 

with the Alliance for Water Efficiency, the American Society of Plumbing Engineers, the Plumbing Manufacturers International, the International Code Council and the Plumbing—Heating—Cooling Contractors Association is a founding 

member of the Plumbing Research Efficiency Coalition, PERC, which is conducting a research program on the impact of reduced flows on building drains. 

This research is needed to ensure that we do not experience unintended consequences related to our water-efficiency efforts. The entire plumbing industry 

is concerned that we may be reaching tipping points at which plumbing products and systems fail to operate as intended and risk the health and safety of 

our citizens. We may, in fact, be at the practical limits of efficiency and any 

further reductions in efficiency levels in some consumer products, specifically 

toilets and showerheads, need to be based on scientific study in order to ensure 

continued efficacy and safety in addition to increased levels of water and energy 

efficiency. Sadly, PERC struggled mightily to secure the meager funding needed 

to support their research effort and was turned away on numerous occasions 

when seeking support from the federal government. Fortunately, however, 

PERC was able to secure most of the funding needed to begin this research by 

securing funding from other NGOs and the private sector. The member organizations of PERC are self funding the remainder of the cost. I think we can all 

agree that it should not be so difficult to conduct this desperately needed research. 

• The EPA should take the lead in the development of uniform national non-potable water-quality standards applicable to various permissible utilizations of nonpotable water. Water-quality standards should reflect the minimum water-quality parameters required to protect public health and safety and protect the integrity and function of plumbing systems and devices. 

• Finally, we encourage the Federal Government to earnestly begin work on the 

development of a comprehensive and coordinated water strategy to meet the 

needs of our growing nation. We applaud the efforts of the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) in convening stakeholders for a White 

House summit to discuss the role of emerging technology in addressing our nation’s water needs and concerns. Our water strategy should include requirements for the incorporation of IT based systems and components into all water 

distribution projects that receive Federal funding. These IT enhanced systems, 

characterized as ‘‘smart water systems’’ will be capable of monitoring for leaks 

thus ensuring efficiency and more consistent compliance to the requirements of 

our safe drinking water standards. Similar technologies can also be deployed in 

building plumbing systems providing real time feedback to building managers. 

As we go about the necessary work of repairing our water infrastructure and 
18 

plumbing systems, we must also modernize these systems as well in order to 

maximize the full potential of our investments. 

Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee and members of the subcommittee, 

it is indeed an honor to be able to provide these comments to you today. As you 

know, there is no substitute for water. While we will always be able to use the incredible ingenuity of the American people to find alternate sources of energy as our 

needs and circumstances evolve, we must recognize that there simply is no substitute for water. We rely on access to safe, clean water every day. 

Last summer the state of Texas was stricken with a severe drought that resulted 

in the closure of businesses in the impacted areas. Already this summer, according 

to the National Climate Data Center, well over 50 percent of the nation is experiencing drought conditions resulting in the worst drought crisis since the 1950’s. 

Combined with certain population growth, especially in the most water-challenged 

regions of our country, these realities illustrate that the time to take action on our 

water-related needs is now. 

The good news is that addressing these needs carries with it profound job-creation 

opportunities. The United States Conference of Mayors estimates that every job created through rebuilding water systems creates more than 3.6 jobs elsewhere and 

every dollar invested in water infrastructure adds $6.35 to the national economy. 

Retrofitting of buildings and homes that still have older water-guzzling plumbing 

fixtures and fittings with high-efficiency models can create thousands of additional 

jobs and yield substantial water and energy savings at the same time. Let’s take 

advantage of these opportunities to address two urgent national needs: job creation 

and ensuring a secure water future for the United States of America. 

Again, I appreciate your time today and look forward to answering any questions 

you may have. 

Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chaney. 

Ms. Dickinson. 

STATEMENT OF MARY ANN DICKINSON, PRESIDENT/CEO, 

ALLIANCE FOR WATER EFFICIENCY, CHICAGO, IL 

Ms. DICKINSON. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, Senator Lee. 

The Alliance for Water Efficiency is pleased to participate in this 

hearing on the important connection between water and energy, 

and we greatly appreciate the strong leadership of both of you on 

this critical issue. 

My name is Mary Ann Dickinson, and I am the President and 

CEO of the Alliance, which is a nonprofit organization of 365 stakeholder organizations of very diverse affiliations that all have experience in water conservation programs and policies. We are dedicated to furthering the efficient and sustainable use of water in 

North America, and we are the only national organization devoted 

solely to this purpose. 

We have been interested in the relationship between water and 

energy since we were founded 5 years ago. A project of which we 

are particularly proud is a joint effort we undertook with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, in 2010, to 

coalesce the views of 75 different organizations in the United 

States that are involved in both water and energy. The resulting 

work product, A Blueprint for Action, contains numerous recommendations for national and State action, in the areas of policy, 

standards and codes, programs, and research. 

Of particular interest is how much water is needed, or embedded, 

in the generation of electricity and how much energy is embedded 

in drinking water pumping and treatment, as well as wastewater 

treatment. 

With a fuller understanding of this significant relationship nationally, Federal funding programs can be developed which will 
19 

cost-effectively and collectively save the most amount of energy and 

water and, therefore, greenhouse gas emissions for the United 

States. Copies of the Blueprint report are being provided to you, all 

the committee members and staff, and we urge you to consider its 

recommendations. 

We wish in our testimony to make 3 basic points, as follows: No. 

1: Water efficiency has already been very successful in saving the 

Nation’s resources and in helping to deter—defer new capacity infrastructure and, thus, should be further promoted at the Federal 

level. 

Plumbing product and appliance standards, as you have heard, 

have reduced indoor water consumption by a range of 43 to 86 percent per fixture or appliance, depending upon the product. EPA’s 

WaterSense label, launched in 2006, has labeled over 4,500 products; the sales of which have resulted in 287 billion gallons saved 

and $4.7 billion saved in consumer water and energy bills. 

By the end of 2011, EPA estimates that there have been reductions of 34—38.4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, along with reductions of 13 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. 

That is equivalent to planting about 50 million trees. EPA’s work 

in this area is a significant achievement in a short time. 

But the Nation’s water utilities have been active as well, reducing consumer demand across the country through cost-effective investments in end-use conservation programs. With the country’s infrastructure needs now estimated by EPA to be in neighborhood of 

$334 billion by 2027, reduced demands due to water efficiency can 

help reduce the need for infrastructure capacity expansion, which 

is a significant part of the infrastructure estimate. 

In fact, EPA’s Community Water System survey in 2006 estimated that in the Nation’s 53,000 community systems, over 50 percent of the capital expenditures were for the expansion of infrastructure, not rehabilitation or replacement. Thus, water efficiency 

can be a cost-effective solution in these expanding systems, where 

population growth may require new supplies, storage, or enlarged 

treatment systems. 

Point No. 2: Saving water saves energy, and the benefits are documentable. As you have also heard from the other witnesses, California has done seminal research in this area, beginning in 2005 

and with its integrated energy policy report, which our Blueprint 

for Action recommends be duplicated nationwide. This work by the 

Energy Commission showed that the amount of embedded energy 

in water and wastewater was in a wide range, from anywhere from 

2,000 to 20,000 kilowatt hours per million gallons of water produced. 

A national study conducted by River Network in 2009, which is 

called the Carbon Footprint of Water, estimated that as much as 

13 percent of the Nation’s electric energy load is related to water 

and wastewater deliveries, equivalent to approximately 15 percent 

of the U.S. carbon load. 

Further studies completed by the California Public Utilities Commission clarified, in more detail, the extent of embedded energy in 

a variety of different water supply sources. The detailed copy of our 

testimony gives a lot of those figures in a table that is on page 8. 
20 

Point No. 3: Water efficiency research, as well as consumer retrofit programs, should be funded and incentivized on a par with energy efficiency programs, because they yield documentable energy 

savings. 

With the Nation’s drought now gripping 62 percent of the counties in the U.S., and with water supplies likely to reach shortage 

conditions if it continues, the time is right for the Federal Government to carefully assess water efficiency as a beneficial strategy. 

Although many water-efficient products, technologies, and programs already exist, more research and development is needed. To 

date, funding has been extremely limited and insufficient, given 

the chronic need. 

With respect to consumer incentives, billions of dollars have been 

spent over the past decade on energy efficiency consumer rebates 

and tax incentives, but in the area of water efficiency, these programs have been largely undertaken by the water system ratepayers, with very little State or Federal funding. 

Thus, we strongly recommend that national incentives be enacted for water efficiency programs, and further, that a national 

policy be instituted to allow energy efficiency funding to be used for 

cold water conservation programs, as well as hot water conservation programs. By cold water programs, I mean programs that reduce plumbing, volumes, or irrigation—increase irrigation efficiency. 

The reason we are asking for this is because of the clear embedded energy benefits that this investment would provide nationally, 

as well as additional jobs in this area. 

So, thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dickinson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MARY ANN DICKINSON, PRESIDENT/CEO, ALLIANCE FOR WATER

EFFICIENCY, CHICAGO, IL 

The Alliance for Water Efficiency is pleased to participate in this hearing on the 

important connection between water and energy, and we greatly appreciate the 

strong leadership of Senator Shaheen and the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources on this issue. The Alliance is a non-profit organization of diverse 

stakeholders with experience in water conservation programs and policies, and dedicated to furthering the efficient and sustainable use of water in North America. It 

is the only national organization devoted solely to this purpose. 

We have been interested in the relationship between water and energy since we 

were founded five years ago. A project of which we are particularly proud is a joint 

effort we undertook with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

(ACEEE) in 2010, to coalesce the views of 75 organizations involved in the waterenergy arena. The resulting work product, A Blueprint for Action, contains numerous recommendations for national and state action in the areas of policy, standards 

and codes, programs, and research. Of particular interest is how much water is 

needed (or ‘‘embedded’’) in the generation of electricity, and how much energy is 

‘‘embedded’’ in drinking water pumping and treatment as well as waste water treatment. With a fuller understanding of this significant relationship, federal policies 

and funding programs can be developed which will cost-effectively and collectively 

save the most amount of energy, water and greenhouse gas emissions for the United 

States. Hardcopies of the report are being provided to committee members and staff, 

and we urge you to consider its recommendations. Electronic copies of A Blueprint 

for Action can be downloaded at the following link: http:// 

www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/blueprint.aspx 

We wish to make three basic points in our testimony, as follows: 

1. Water efficiency has already been very successful in saving the nation’s resources and in helping to defer new capacity infrastructure, and should be further promoted at the federal level.—Plumbing product and appliance standards, 
21 

* All tables have been retained in subcommittee files. 

** All figures have been retained in subcommittee files. 

in effect since the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and refined in subsequent legislation, have reduced indoor water consumption by a range of 43-86 percent per 

fixture, depending upon the product (see Table 1*). EPA’s WaterSense label, 

launched in 2006, has labeled over 4500 products, the sales of which have resulted in 287 billion gallons saved and $4.7 billion saved in consumer water and 

energy bills. By the end of 2011, reductions of 38.4 billion kWh of electricity 

were achieved along with reductions of 13 million metric tons of green house 

gas emissions—equivalent to the planting of over 50 million trees. EPA’s work 

in this area is a significant achievement in a very short time. But the nation’s 

water utilities have been active as well, reducing consumer demand across the 

country through cost-effective investments in end use conservation programs. 

With the country’s infrastructure needs now estimated by EPA to be in the 

neighborhood of $334.8 billion by 2027, reduced demands due to water efficiency 

programs can help reduce the need for infrastructure capacity expansion, a significant part 3 of the infrastructure estimate. In fact, EPA’s Community Water 

System Survey in 2006 estimated that in the nation’s 53,000 community systems, 52.6 percent of the capital expenditures were for expansion of infrastructure, not rehabilitation or replacement. Thus, water efficiency can be a cost-effective solution in these expanding systems where population growth may require new supplies, storage or enlarged treatment systems. 

2. Saving Water Saves Energy—and the benefits are documentable.—California has been a leader in this area, having done the seminal research in 2005 

which the Blueprint for Action recommends be duplicated nationwide. This 

work by the California Energy Commission showed that the amount of embedded energy in water and wastewater was in the range of 2,000 kWh to 20,000 

kWh per million gallons of water produced (see Figure 1**). A national study 

conducted by River Network in 2009 called The Carbon Footprint of Water estimated that as much as 13 percent of the nation’s electric energy load is related 

to water and wastewater deliveries, equivalent to 5 percent of the US carbon 

load (see Figure 2). Further studies completed by the California Public Utilities 

Commission clarified in more detail the extent of embedded energy in a variety 

of different water supply sources (see Table 2). Energy intensities for drinking 

water and wastewater treatment technologies were documented. Now these values, as evidenced by the pilot projects which measured them, can be productively used in models to estimate energy savings from future water efficiency 

programs which include a wide variety of measures. The Alliance for Water Efficiency has built just such a model, called the Water Conservation Tracking 

Tool, which estimates not only the energy savings to the utility from both cold 

and hot water conservation programs, but also the savings to the customer and 

the overall reduction of green house gas emissions for a suite of chosen water 

efficiency programs (See Figure 3 for a sample output). 

3. Water efficiency research, as well as consumer retrofit programs, should be 

incentivized on a par with energy efficiency programs, because they yield documentable energy savings.—With drought now gripping 62 percent of the counties in the US, and with water supplies likely to reach shortage conditions if 

it continues, the time is right for the federal government to carefully assess 

water efficiency as a beneficial strategy. Although many water-efficient products, technologies, and programs already exist, more research and development 

is needed. To date, funding has been limited and insufficient given the chronic 

need. For example, in the past 10 years only $3.5 million has been spent by 

EPA in water efficiency research, a fraction of what has been spent by the Department of Energy on energy efficiency research. With respect to consumer incentives, billions of dollars have been spent over the past decade on energy efficiency consumer rebates and tax incentives (see Figure 7). In the area of water 

efficiency, these programs have largely been undertaken by the water system 

ratepayers, with very little state funding. Virtually no federal money has been 

allocated for dedicated water efficiency programs. Even the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocated out of its $780 billion package $30 billion for energy efficiency programs but only $6 billion for overall water programs—20 percent of which had to be spent on ‘‘green infrastructure’’ which 

could include water efficiency. But an examination of the actual expenditures 

shows that only 29 percent of the 20 percent was actually spent on water efficiency; most of the money in the 20 percent set-aside was spent in energy efficiency, storm water, and environmental innovation projects (See Table 3). In 

FY12 Congress appropriated $811 million for energy efficiency programs in 
22 

DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and $50 million for Energy Star. Contrast that with zero funding for water efficiency programs and $2 million for WaterSense. 

Thus, we strongly recommend that national incentives be enacted for water efficiency programs, and further that a national policy be instituted to allow energy efficiency funding to be used for cold water conservation programs as well as hot 

water conservation programs because of the clear embedded energy benefits that 

this investment would provide. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Ms. Dickinson, and 

thank you all for your testimony. 

I am going to start where you ended, and that is the lack of investment in looking at water use efficiencies. I was interested in 

your testimony because you talk—you do the comparison between 

how much has been spent on energy efficiency, and I am particularly interested in this because Senator Portman and I have a bill 

that is a fairly comprehensive approach to energy efficiency, that 

does not address water, as you point out. 

But I wonder if you could talk about why you think that is; why 

has the focus been so much on energy and overlook the water side? 

Ms. DICKINSON. There are probably a couple of reasons for that; 

one is historical. You know, we are structured to deal with water 

at the State level and not at the Federal. It is largely very fragmented within Federal agencies, whereas we have one central Department of Energy. So some of us have envy for a department of 

water that would have those same responsibilities and focus. 

But I think also, we have been in such separate silos for so long 

that we have, until recently, until really the California work took 

place in 2005, we didn’t really cross over and look at each other’s 

impacts. Now we are seeing, as we look at products that the—for 

example, the Department of Energy is issuing product standards 

for. 

Let’s take ice makers as an example. An energy efficient ice 

maker uses water. A water-efficient ice maker uses energy. We 

need to find a sweet spot in between. We need to figure out how 

we optimize both the water and the energy savings, particularly because we have now discovered there is so much embedded energy 

in that water. 

So, what we did in the Blueprint for Action was document that 

there are many places in energy efficiency programs and in energy 

policy and research programs where just adding the concept of 

water will make a lot of policy sense. Directing the Department of 

Energy to include water in its deliberations would be a very significant development. So we would be urging you to do that. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Mr. Chaney, did you want to add 

to that? 

Mr. CHANEY. Just one very small point onto what Mary Ann provided, and that is, when one looks at the cost of certain types of 

energies compared with the cost of water, there is a dramatic difference. I think that is one of the reasons that water has not been 

focused on in a big way because it is, simply put, very cheap, comparatively speaking. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Especially depending on where you live, right? 

Mr. CHANEY. That is right. 
23 

Senator SHAHEEN. So, what are some of the barriers to deploying 

the use of water-efficient technologies, the kinds of codes and 

standards you talked about, Mr. Green? What are effective ways to 

overcome these barriers? 

Do you want to go first on responding to that? 

Mr. GREEN. I will try. First of all, I think that throughout our 

country, there is a problem today with regard to the application of 

codes and standards locally. There is not a universal application of 

codes and standards throughout the United States. There are some 

places in this country that don’t even have codes in place. 

So, water being lowest on the totem pole, if you will, in terms 

of safety issues, really hasn’t been—hasn’t drawn that much attention. We focus on things like structural safety in buildings; we 

focus on things about prevention of natural disasters in buildings. 

So, codes and standards get that kind of press, if you will, but not 

when it comes to water. 

Aas the other panelists have talked about, water is relatively 

cheap. When you get your water bill at the end of the month, you 

really do not take too much look at it. But when you get the gas 

bill, that is a whole different thing. So, we focused, in terms of energy efficiency, in terms of codes and standards, to achieve better 

efficiencies with regard to energy use for heating and cooling. 

Even your comments earlier today about how cool it was in this 

building, really are the point. Water, we don’t even think about because it is there. You know, if we look at the kind of codes and 

standards that we have in this country, which are fairly applicable 

in terms of a lot of the areas, we need to get better at the production of more efficiencies in our buildings. 

There is a lot of work going on today with respect to pipe-sizing 

and how to minimum water loss, but not that great. Then when we 

move over to the utility side, there really is no codes or standards 

that are applied by local units of government as a regulatory process; it is only by the utility. They regulate themselves in terms of 

water loss in their piping systems. So, that is where a lot of the 

inefficiencies are today. 

If we had a comprehensive plan, in terms of looking at point of 

generation for water to point of distribution and use, we would 

have the whole gamut to be covered, but we don’t have that continuity through the process. 

Senator SHAHEEN. You talked about the abundance of water, and 

I think Ms. Dickinson and Mr. Chaney alluded to that, too. But, 

Mr. Chaney, I was impressed with the map you have in your testimony that shows the seasonal drought outlook and the projections 

for future drought, and the whole center of the country is projected 

to have a drought persist or intensify. 

So when you look at the map and look at the potential for water 

scarcity, it adds a whole new dimension to the importance of efficiency; wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. CHANEY. Absolutely, Senator Shaheen. We have very serious 

potential problems in our country. In many respects, we are behind 

many other developed countries. Australia is the most accepted 

model throughout the world with respect to drought conditions and 

how they have responded. The United States, simply put, is a decade or two behind many other developed countries. 
24 

As some of the other panelists have pointed out, you know, the 

EPA—some of our Federal agencies have begun to implement requirements with respect to ensuring that individual plumbing fixtures are of very high efficiency. But the building infrastructure 

and the water supply systems that bring the water from the utility 

to the individual buildings are wasting more—much, much more 

water than we could ever possibly think of saving. 

So the infrastructure needs to be addressed. Then we need, 

frankly, resources to conduct research to understand what the implications are to public health and safety, because it is a continuing 

balancing point between water and energy conservation and taking 

that to a limit to ensure that we don’t risk public health and safety. 

Senator SHAHEEN. You talk about educating the public. What 

kinds of programs are out there that you all have been party to, 

that you think help with that public education piece? 

Ms. Dickinson. 

Ms. DICKINSON. Public education programs are largely handled 

at the local level by the water system that is serving the community, which is unfortunate because we don’t have a national message. It is one of the issues that we are hoping to work on, on a 

national basis, at the Alliance for Water Efficiency because we 

don’t have a national prerogative, a policy, a consumer education 

program that is recognized as being of national interest. 

It really is focused on the local water shed and the local situation. That is partly because people have a very emotional attachment to their local water supplies and they don’t think of it as a 

national issue. It is part of, I think, what we need to change. 

Senator SHAHEEN. If each of you were going to recommend one 

thing that we could do to make water efficiency a higher priority, 

what would you recommend? 

I do not know who wants—Mr. Bena. 

Mr. BENA. From the perspective of a water and energy user in 

the food and beverage industry, one of the challenges that we have 

seen over the years is being able to calculate favorable return on 

investment for some of the technology projects that we’ve liked to 

employ. I think any Government intervention that could help via 

incentive or other mechanism, that would help make those ROI calculations more favorable, it would spur remarkable innovation and 

new technologies, and allow us, as the private sector, to incubate 

really novel approaches to both water and energy conservation. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So give me some examples of what you think 

would be helpful. 

Mr. BENA. One of the things that we are—and, again, this is 

somewhat nascent, but we are doing this in Gujarat, India, and it 

is an example outside the United States. It is done in partnership 

with the Columbia University Earth Institute. In this particular 

part of India, they see that water levels in aquifers are dropping 

up to 3 feet per year, so it is a really—it is an abysmal situation 

there. 

At the same time, farmers, many of them are small-holder 

famers, are digging deeper wells. So when you dig deeper wells, obviously it requires more electricity to dig, to withdraw the water. 

The incentives scheme in Gujarat was essentially non-existent. 
25 

There was nothing—there was no policy that was incentivizing 

those farmers, either, A, to use less water or, B, to use less electricity. 

So the Columbia Water Center, through funding from the 

PepsiCo Foundation, partnered with the government of Gujarat to 

actually try, and it is still very new, but it is trying a new scheme 

to incentivize those farmers, by giving them relief on electrical 

rates to use less water to pump—less water to grow the crops. So 

there we are seeing not only a twofold nexus of water and energy, 

but actually water, energy, and food, as well. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So that the less water they use, the lower 

their bills are—— 

Mr. BENA. Correct. 

Senator SHAHEEN. As opposed to what we often have in our electric system, which is the more energy you use, the less cost. 

Mr. BENA. That is right. Traditionally, it has been unbridled use. 

It has been really—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

Mr. BENA. Unbridled water use. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Do the rest of you have recommendations for 

one significant change that we can make? 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. First of all, I think what you are doing today 

is really a start of what can be part of a national dialog on water 

efficiency and the nexus that we have today. 

Last year, the National Institute of Building Sciences Consultative Council issued a report about the water nexus, part of that 

dialog. You have a copy of our annual report, which we provided 

to you today, that talks about that and the continuing work of the 

Consultative Council. 

If we have a continued national dialog about the water nexus, 

one of the things that has to be done at this point is, for us to move 

forward, is to develop benchmark standards, by which we can 

measure use. Then, we can achieve better efficiencies, because now 

we would have something to compare our savings against. 

Because there is no national program now, there is no way that 

we could say that the savings that we achieve are universal. They 

could be greater in one area versus another. So, that is the kind 

of discussion that needs to occur. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So the importance of data that you talked 

about in your testimony? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Chaney. 

Mr. CHANEY. I think, in some respects, Chairwoman Shaheen, we 

have got tools already available to us. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 

which is the American National Standard for plumbing system installations, and the Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement already provide for these high-energy-type systems that will 

help us address these water efficiency and energy efficiency needs, 

long term. Usually, that is not the case. 

Usually, you know, we have got to work for many years to develop the underpinning research that provides us with the ability 

to develop the technology. The technology is already there. We have 
26 

got standards that address rainwater catchment systems, gray 

water recycling systems. 

In some respects, they are not widely adopted by States throughout the country, because some perceive green technologies as being 

too expensive. It was the same experience 30 years ago with the 

solar energy, and the Federal Government had to provide incentives to kick-start the implementation of the systems. In many respects, that is what we are experiencing today. 

The Uniform Plumbing Code is the most widely recognized code 

in the world. More than 50 percent of the world’s population is covered by the provisions in that document. But here in the United 

States, we can’t get many States to understand that the technology 

is already there, from an energy and water conservation perspective. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Before I ask Ms. Dickinson to respond, I want 

to get Mr. Bena to comment on what you said about the perception 

that green technologies are more expensive. Because, clearly, 

PepsiCo has adopted those green technologies as a way to save 

money on your bottom line. 

Mr. BENA. I think in many ways, it still is a perception. What 

we have shown through many of the projects that we have implemented, like membrane bioreactors at our Casa Grande facility, 

like remote wind turbines in India that feed a significant portion 

of renewable energy to our plants, is that they are doable and you 

can make the ROIs work. 

But, once again, a very important part of that calculation, I 

think, is some relief from governments. 

The other thing I would say is—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Can you define that a little bit better. When 

you say some relief from governments, what are you talking about? 

Mr. BENA. So, some sort of incentive, either at the State or national level. Policy frameworks, for example, one of the things. 

Many countries where a PepsiCo operates actually don’t have our 

national water adaptation plans. That is a really important first 

step, I would say, in terms of recognizing the water-energy nexus. 

One of the things that we are involved with through the Water 

Resources Group 2030, which is now housed in the International 

Finance Corporation, is looking at policy models specifically to help 

close a 40 percent gap, which has been estimated between water 

supply and demand globally over the next 20 years. So, in some respects—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. So—I’m just going to stop you there. 

Mr. BENA. Sure. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Say that again, because I want to make 

sure—— 

Mr. BENA. Sure. 

Senator SHAHEEN [continuing]. We all got that—— 

Mr. BENA. Sure. 

Senator SHAHEEN [continuing]. Discrepancy that you are talking 

about. 

Mr. BENA. So through an organization called the Water Resources Group 2030, which is an entity that started in the World 

Economic Forum and is now formally housed in the International 

Finance Corporation—the sole mission of the Water Resources 
27 

Group is to, at the invitation of governments around the world, 

help close the estimated 40 percent gap between water supply and 

water demand over the next 20 years. 

What is really interesting about having a group motivated by 

that single goal is that there is a variety of opportunities within 

that. It can be agricultural interventions, right, like, tensiometers, 

which are some of the things that we are developing to save water 

use on farm. It could be things like the membrane bioreactors in 

facilities to help reuse water and make sure that the water reuse 

doesn’t pose any sort of threat to product quality. You have this 

barrage of opportunities, all dedicated to this single goal, which is 

closing that 40 percent gap. 

If we don’t collaborate with governments, with the private sector, 

with NGO’s, with academia, there is no way we are going to be 

able to hit that goal. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Ms. Dickinson. 

Ms. DICKINSON. This is hard because you have asked for only one 

recommendation, and, you know, my head is full of—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. You can give three. 

Ms. DICKINSON [continuing]. Lots of them. 

Senator SHAHEEN. You know, what—— 

Ms. DICKINSON. So, I gave you two in the testimony, so I am 

going to give you—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

Ms. DICKINSON [continuing]. A different one, because I think this 

is the underpinning activity that has to start first. 

The work they did in California shows that we don’t have a good 

understanding, certainly in the rest of the country, of the extent of 

embedded energy in water supplies and treatment and wastewater 

treatment. The numbers are highly local, highly specific. That is 

the lesson we learned from the California data. 

So we have great numbers in California, but we don’t have great 

numbers anywhere else in the country. Without having a good 

sense of what those national numbers and aggregated data base 

would produce, we don’t have a good sense for how to emphasize 

it in policy or in incentives, or in continued regulatory work. 

So, I think that is the first step and that is probably the first 

thing I would ask for. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So you agree with Mr. Green, that we need to 

collect the data? Do you have a—— 

Ms. DICKINSON. The data Mr. Green, I believe, was talking about 

was at the building level, which I agree from an—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

Ms. DICKINSON [continuing]. Perspective is very important. But 

I am talking about the water utility and wastewater utility data. 

They need to inventory for each of their supply sources what their 

energy intensity is, and it is different for every system. But the collective value of it to the Nation is the number we really don’t know. 

EPRI did a study back, I think it was now almost 10 years ago, 

and those numbers are outdated. It is time to take a real look, 

based on the California methodology, of what our national numbers 

really are. 

From there, we can build the connections. Energy efficiency incentives can be then paying for water efficiency programs that ac-
28 

tually yield the energy benefit it is paying for because you will 

know exactly what that will do. 

So at the Alliance for Water Efficiency, we have actually built a 

model that estimates the energy savings from water efficiency programs, both hot water and cold water, and estimates the greenhouse gas emission reductions, is largely based on the Californiaspecific data that was generated, and it would be much better informed to have a better national picture if we had it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Do you have a proposal for who should keep— 

start collecting that data? Are—should it be the water systems, and 

then, who should they report that to in order to give us a national 

picture? 

Ms. DICKINSON. I understand you have S. 1343, the Energy and 

Water Integration Act, and that stipulates the number of research 

projects that would be undertaken by a variety of agencies. That 

would be a place where that data could be collected. It needs to be 

a study. I think requiring the utilities to report it would just create 

a 10-year process. I think we can actually, in the space of a couple 

of years, create a good national data base with some confidence. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That would allow us to model—— 

Ms. DICKINSON. Right. 

Senator SHAHEEN [continuing]. What we are using. 

Thank you. 

Ms. DICKINSON. Then you can key the actual benefits of the incentives right to the defined energy savings that you are achieving. 

The reason I mention that is there—in FY12, Congress appro- priated $811 million for energy efficiency programs in DOE’s Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We don’t have anything like that in water efficiency, zero. 

So, to me, that is a huge contrast, and you could, perhaps, address that in equity by having a better understanding of the benefits that water efficiency provides. 

Senator SHAHEEN. One area where Government, I think, is beginning to recognize the importance of this nexus and address it is 

within the military. The Navy has a major program underway to 

conserve both energy and water. I am familiar with it because the 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which is on the border between New 

Hampshire and Maine—so it is an installation important to both 

of us—was the winner in their category because of the savings that 

they have made with both energy and water. 

But I was interested because I visited a hospital in New Hampshire last week, and I was looking at the efficiency measures that 

they had taken in the hospital, so very significant in terms of energy savings. 

But they were really struggling with how to do the water savings 

piece because of the challenges of the technology that was available. How to do that, particularly in a situation where being able 

to use gray water is probably not as available as in some manufacturing installations, for example, where that is a better opportunity 

than in a hospital setting where they really have to have clean 

water in most of their practices. 

But, can you all talk about the whole issue of gray water. Several 

of you mentioned that one of the requirements we have in this 

country is that the water has to be to a drinking water standard 
29 

in almost all of the water that we are treating, and, yet, we don’t 

really need that standard in much of those water uses. So, how 

could we begin to address that? 

Maybe, Mr. Bena, I’ll start with you. Then, Mr. Green, I know 

you have some thoughts about that. But, how can we look at that 

and encourage companies to look at where they don’t need the 

drinking water standard and—— 

Mr. BENA. I think, Senator, we frankly, along with many of our 

peer companies and our competitors, have been looking at that 

question for years. It was really through the lens of efficiency and 

eco-efficiency savings before it had anything to do with sustainability. 

Frankly, we are in a somewhat unique position because we have 

a very intimate relationship with our consumers, right. You eat 

and drink. You ingest the things that we sell. As a result of that, 

it opens us up to something called a perception, and Lord knows— 

I mean, the consumers perception of what, you know, a treated 

process wastewater stream is may not always be based in the 

science that supports that. 

So, for years, on the beverage side of the business, we have not 

allowed the reuse of water, even if it meets primary drinking water 

standards, for use back in—as ingredient water into our beverages. 

It is largely based on perception, not on science. 

On the food side of the business, the Casa Grande plant that I 

mentioned in Arizona; the Tingalpa, Australia plant; soon to be a 

third plant in Chile is actually doing that. So they are now recycling process wastewater back to a level where they can use it with 

direct product contact to wash potatoes. Again, the perception is 

very different on the food side of the business versus beverage. 

I will say that one of the barriers to, I think, this exploding, in 

terms of seeing potential reuse opportunities, is the lack of very 

clear standards with regard to the different tiers of what is useable 

for what applications. So, as a result of that, companies, by and 

large, are developing them themselves. 

We learned very early on that that kind of a risk assessment can 

be so laborious and so costly that, in many ways, it is easier just 

to default to primary and secondary drinking water standards for 

water reuse, which, frankly, is what we have been doing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Green, did you want to add to that? 

Mr. GREEN. I think he is very correct in that, because we have 

relied upon primary water—drinking water standards for use of 

water as a primary source. 

Gray water, we just have not accepted the use of gray water universally in some applications. For example, gray water, couldn’t be 

used—and it is being used for reclaimed water in terms of watering 

our lawns and so forth. But we really haven’t used it in processing, 

in building systems. The contaminants that might be in those waters that we use in, for example, cooling towers, because we have 

to treat cooling towers so we don’t develop bacteria. So we use primary water instead of recycled water in those conditions. 

So we need to make sure that if we are going to use this recycled 

water, that they do meet the standard that we are using. So we 

are going to have various tiers of conditioning that we have to 

have. I think that gets back to the science of it, from the stand-
30 

point of how are we going to use the water, where is it generated 

from, and how can a building reprocess, internally, to use water. 

Those are the things that I think, when I talked about the dialog 

about how we use this water, I think that has all got to be contained in that discussion. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Did either of you want to comment on that? 

Mr. CHANEY. If I can add to it, Senator. The—you know, the 

water quality standards for recycled or reclaimed water are available. The design, installation, and maintenance standards for how 

to install the systems within buildings, they are available in the 

Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement. 

I think one of the impediments has been the infrastructure costs 

that go along with redesigning the system, because, with the gray 

water recycling system, you now have dual piping that has to be 

introduced and there is an associated cost. 

You know, in a home, you know, you may only be talking about 

$3,000 or $4,000. In a PepsiCo plant, you are talking literally, potentially millions of dollars. So there is a huge infrastructure cost 

that gets tied together. The standards are already there. That is 

what I was speaking to earlier. 

So, in that respect, we have the tools from a design and installation perspective to install and maintain these systems. It is a matter now of understanding what the financial implications are. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Anything to add, Ms. Dickinson? 

Ms. DICKINSON. The gray water topic is an interesting one because gray water is largely permitted at the local health department level. Local public health officers have been permitting these 

systems only as pilots because there is no national epidemiological 

standard that they feel comfortable with, and that is an issue we 

need to address. 

But, again, because of the lack of funding for this issue, there 

has been a group of stakeholders, and Russ’s organization is part 

of it—there’s 6 organizations that have come together to form a 

plumbing efficiency research coalition, and they are self-funding a 

number of studies on plumbing and efficiency issues to make sure 

that we proceed with as best an understanding as possible. For example, are we getting blockages in drain lines. 

Gray water is on the list for study. But this coalition has access 

to zero Federal resources. We are self-funding these studies because we can’t get access to, you know, Federal institutions to take 

a look at this issue. 

So gray water probably needs the active participation of a number of Federal agencies, like the Center for Disease Control. You 

know, people who need to weigh in an help make sure that as we 

roll out the standards that Russ is talking about, that the local 

public health officers develop a level of comfort with it. Because, 

right now, they don’t have it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Given those challenges, is—are the savings, 

they are significant enough to make it worthwhile? I mean, is this 

an area that we should be pursuing or should we—— 

Ms. DICKINSON. It depends. 

Senator SHAHEEN [continuing]. Be pursuing the—— 
31 

Ms. DICKINSON. For indoor fixtures, because we are ratcheting 

down so much of the actual volume, the flow volume of all those 

fixtures, we’re generating less and less potential for gray water. 

But, you know, I think in the commercial and industrial installations, it’s a different—if it’s—it’s a different matter. So I, you know, 

leave it to the others to address that point. 

But we are seeing such enormous reductions in indoor water use 

domestically that the feasibility, economically, of retrofitting a 

house with a gray water system, you know, it’s not cost effective; 

that feasibility isn’t there. 

Now new construction will be different, especially if you can use 

a lot of that gray water outdoors. But, again, standards don’t uniformly exist for gray water application and irrigation. So these are 

all issues we need to address. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Chaney. 

Mr. CHANEY. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

I just wanted to make one, I think, important point with respect 

to your question. That is, when we look at water conservation and 

whether or not the infrastructure cost justifies the expenditure, we 

not only—unlike with energy, in water, you look at not only the 

water savings, but the energy savings that go along with it. 

So there is a dual benefit in respect to water savings. You always 

got to remember that that nexus exists, unlike in the reverse. 

That’s an important distinction that we have to keep in mind when 

we consider these infrastructure costs. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So as we’re thinking about policies—national 

policies to help deal with water efficiency, the—a better approach 

might be to continue to encourage reduction in water use, as opposed to looking at how we can encourage more use of non-potable 

water. Is that what it sounds like you are all saying? 

Mr. Bena. 

Mr. BENA. I think, frankly, it’s a little bit of both, and I think 

that that answer of both is going to become even more true as time 

goes on. When you think about population growth and population 

shift and the drought that you mentioned, and one of my co-panelists, the drought projections, I think we’re going to have to use any 

and all tools at our disposal to be able to address the magnitude 

of the crises. 

Furthermore, and again, the unique perspective of a consumer 

products company like PepsiCo—I can’t believe I’m about to say 

this, but it doesn’t always come down to financial cost. In fact, we 

have plants operating that do not have attractive returns on investment because of preserving our social license to operate in those 

geographies, which, frankly, can be absolutely crippling to a business. Unfortunately, there’s no easy ways, as of yet, to kind of 

quantitate that social license. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So, how can we support leadership in the private sector to address these issues? Obviously, PepsiCo has done 

an excellent job of looking at the challenges you face and why it 

is in your company’s interest, both from a cost perspective, but 

also, as you point out, because of the social capital that you get as 

the result of doing the right thing in different places. How can you 

promote that kind of ethic and—among the private sector? 
32 

Mr. BENA. I think, Madame Chair, there have been—I have been 

at PepsiCo for 28 years. In the last, I would say, 5 years, I have 

seen an unprecedented and positive increase in collaboration. 

It sometimes sounds pat, but it is so powerful when you can actually get the local government, or the National or the international government to collaborate legitimately with the private 

sector, and you bring NGO’s to the party, and you bring academia 

to the party, the result is—you know, people use the word synergy, 

right; one plus one equals three. A lot of times that’s overused. But 

with those kinds of collaborations, I think it’s absolutely true. 

You know, we’ve witnessed it. We continue to witness it. WRG 

was one example; United Nations CEO Water Mandate is another. 

I mean, it’s essentially under the IGES of the U.N. Secretary General. But it is a private sector-led consortium. It has opened up 

such collaborative opportunities with the private sector, with governments, with NGO’s. It is—I think anything that we can do to 

kind of spur that air of collective action would certainly benefit all 

involved. 

Senator SHAHEEN. So, you mentioned the legislation, Ms. Dickinson. But how can the Federal Government be a partner in these 

kinds of initiatives? 

Ms. DICKINSON. You have a Department of Energy that could be 

directed to take a look at the water side, the water impacts from 

its energy regulatory activities, and I think that would be an important step. You know, making sure we have good information 

would be another important step. 

But I am hearing, you know, from other panelists, too, the issue 

of incentive. You know, the incentive is important because, as we 

know, water is not priced the same way as energy and is largely 

considered almost a free resource in some parts of the country. So 

since we price the water based on the cost of delivery and not on 

its resource value itself, it—you don’t often get that return on investment. 

So, the ability to provide an additional Federal incentive would 

be very significant, and I think there is a national benefit even beyond the resource issues there. Jobs are created by these efficiency 

programs. You know, we did an analysis that showed that if we invested $10 billion in the U.S. in water efficiency programs, we 

could create up to 220,000 new jobs in the implementation of these 

programs. 

So these are all issues that I think we need to think about rolling 

in. I know this is not the economy to be talking about additional 

Federal funding for anything. But, to date, water efficiency has gotten zero in terms of Federal incentives, and it—I think it is time 

to readdress that. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Included in that $10 billion figure, did you include any of the upgrades that need to be made to our current 

water and wastewater treatment systems, which obviously are, in 

many places, very out-of-date and in need of replacement? 

Ms. DICKINSON. The $10 billion figure that I just mentioned was 

a study that we did that was solely dedicated to water efficiency, 

which is mostly end use programs, but also leak detection and repair that Russ mentioned in his comments. It was addressing the 

infrastructure leakage, not replacement of new infrastructure. That 
33 

was not part of our analysis. But repair of leaks and rehabilitation 

of those leaks was part of that analysis. 

Mr. GREEN. Chairwoman Shaheen, at the risk of really getting 

the ire of my board of directors, I’d like to offer something to you 

in this discussion. 

The National Institute of Building Sciences was, in fact, 

impaneled to be this link between private sector and public agencies to talk about issues such as this. 

What I would propose is that there would be a program that 

would be developed to identify a national water plan that would 

bring both private and public sector organizations to the table, 

much like PepsiCo, IAPMO, other code organizations, and other resources, such that a report could be generated that could be delivered to you that might show all of the varying issues relative to 

the water nexus. 

I know that’s a daunting challenge, but that’s something that I 

think that the Institute was, in fact, impaneled to do. As I said, 

I will talk to my board of directors about doing that kind of work. 

This would not be a Government or a private sector program, but 

a collaboration between the two that would have both of the parties. Because if we start this discussion, the folks in the private 

sector are going to come to the table and we can bring some of the 

Federal agencies there that have various concerns: water quality, 

medical issues. We could invite all of them to the same kind of discussions so that it all could be compiled in a report. 

I would hope I would get the support of the other panel members 

to look at something like that. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I was just going to ask them if they support 

that idea. 

Good. Are there any final comments that any of you would like 

to make before we close the hearing? 

Ms. DICKINSON. I want to thank you very much for hosting a 

hearing on this topic. This is something that is very important to 

us as an organization, and we are very, very thrilled to see your 

attention to this issue. 

Mr. CHANEY. Chairwoman Shaheen, I couldn’t agree more. It’s 

through these types of hearings that this important information 

gets into public policy debates. 

As my co-panelists have indicated, this is something that really 

needs a lot of attention, given the major drought conditions that 

we’re likely to experience as a country. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Bena. 

Mr. BENA. I think, Madame Chair, by addressing this genuinely 

as a nexus of water and energy, and potentially even adding the 

third component of food, it is a real opportunity for U.S. leadership 

to once again be shown. 

Thank you very much for hosting. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Green, final point? 

Mr. GREEN. I would just like to say thank you very much for this 

opportunity. I think it is shown that there is, in fact, a great concern. That we at least share that concern, and we share it with 

you. we’re hopeful, very hopeful, that as a result of our discussions, 

going forward, that we can make a difference. 
34 

Thank you, again. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, all, very much for your testimony. 

I think you have given us a lot to think about and some real concrete recommendations for what might be helpful from the public 

sector, going forward. 

I think if we remember nothing from the hearing, those of us 

who have listened, certainly the 40 percent difference between supply and demand ought to get everybody’s attention. 

So thank you, all, very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(35) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF BUILDING SCIENCES, 

Washington, DC, August 15, 2012. 

Hon. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 

Chairwoman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

Hon. MIKE LEE, 

Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee. 

DEAR CHAIRWOMAN SHAHEEN AND RANKING MEMBER LEE: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Water and Power Subcommittee about water efficiency and its connection with energy. I commend your 

leadership and see this hearing as an opportunity to start an ongoing national dialogue to address how we efficiently utilize this limited resource. 

As I indicated at the close of the hearing, the Institute would be honored to spearhead the conversation on establishing a National Water Plan and hope you will support such an effort. 

I am pleased to provide the following responses to your follow-up questions. 

Question 1. What are the economic and job-related benefits of addressing aging 

water infrastructure and building plumbing systems? 

Answer. Numerous organizations, from the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE) to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, have identified the state of our waterrelated infrastructure as a significant issue facing the nation. ASCE, in a 2009 report, gave the U.S. drinking water and wastewater system a D- grade. Investing in 

improvements to both the water distribution system and sewer system would result 

in economic and job-related benefits. The Congressional Budget Office found in 2002 

that repairing and updating water distribution systems would require $335 billion 

over the next 20 years and an additional $300 billion to do the same for sewer systems. 

In addition to the jobs necessary (including everything from manufacturing and 

engineering to construction) to complete such repairs and updates, further benefits 

would accrue. The United States Conference of Mayors estimates that every job created through rebuilding water systems creates more than 3.6 jobs elsewhere and 

every dollar invested in water infrastructure adds $6.35 to the national economy. 

Nearly 2 trillion gallons of water are lost annually through leaks in water pipes. This annual loss equates to an estimated $1 to $2 billion. These costs are incorporated into a water utility’s rate structure and are ultimately born by their ratepayers. Eliminating such wasteful expenditures would result in additional funds 

being available for ratepayers to invest elsewhere in the economy. 

Incentives to conduct water audits for building plumbing systems can have the 

tri-fold benefit of creating jobs, reducing water use and saving building owners 

money. Such audits identify opportunities for the retrofit of existing fixtures and appliances (many of which are made in the United States). 

Question 2. Please describe the work that you have done with Federal agencies 

to highlight the impact that water efficiency has on energy efficiency. What role has 

the Department of Energy played in incorporating this data into their energy efficiency modeling for buildings? 

Answer. Though the Institute works with federal agencies extensively, it has had 

a very limited engagement on projects that address the connection between water 
36 

efficiency and energy efficiency. The majority of our work with federal agencies has 

been focused on resolving specific needs already identified by the agency. However, 

the following activities provide examples of our work in this area: 

• Whole Building Design Guide: The Whole Building Design Guide 

(www.wbdg.org) is the world’s largest repository of buildings-related information. Eleven agencies support the guide and reference its content for their building programs. The private sector also makes significant use of this resource. 

Pages on ‘‘Water Conservation’’ and ‘‘Protect and Conserve Water’’ identify the 

necessity to include energy issues when examining water issues. 

• Mechanical Insulation Design Guide: The Mechanical Insulation Design Guide 

(www.wbdg.org/design/midg.php) serves as a comprehensive source of information on the benefits of mechanical insulation, criteria for selection, design and 

installation of mechanical insulation systems and case studies. Currently, the 

guide focuses primarily on the energy efficiency-related benefits of mechanical 

insulation, but as mentioned in my testimony, there are potential water efficiency-related benefits as well. Future versions of the guide will explore these 

issues in greater depth. 

• Department of Energy (DOE) National Training and Education Resource 

(NTER) Weatherization Training Program: The Institute led development of a 

module for NTER that focused on training weatherization personnel in a virtual 

environment. While the module is primarily focused on improving energy efficiency, it does address some water-related activities, including insulating pipes 

and water heaters. Future NTER modules could be developed with a greater 

focus on tying water and energy efficiency together. 

While the Institute is not privy to all considerations that go into DOE decision 

making and model development, the role of water efficiency in such activities appears limited. Generally, the codes and standards that address energy use for both 

commercial and residential buildings do not include a focus on water efficiency or 

the resultant energy savings. There are several specific areas in the context of codes 

and standards where a future focus on water efficiency is possible, including the use 

of mechanical insulation, the efficiency of water pumping and heating equipment, 

and the use of water for cooling of HVAC equipment. Putting a greater focus on the 

connection between water and energy at DOE and within other agencies (Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development and National Institute 

of Standards and Technology) could provide a more holistic and comprehensive approach to the efficient use of limited resources. We would be pleased to work with 

this Subcommittee and the relevant agencies to embed water efficiency considerations in all energy-related discussions and vice-versa. 

Question 3. Please describe the different job opportunities that could be related 

to a concerted focus on water efficiency within the building sector. In addition, 

where is most of the equipment made that is used to reduce water use, or improve 

overall water efficiency within the residential, commercial and industrial sectors? 

Answer. There would be a variety of associated job opportunities created if a concerted effort was made to improve water efficiency within the building sector. Such 

efforts should start with identifying how water is currently used and opportunities 

to use water more efficiently. Water audits and commissioning efforts would require 

a cadre of skilled contractors. Once water saving opportunities were identified, they 

could be implemented by various different workers within the construction trades, 

including plumbers and landscapers. Both new buildings and complex retrofits aiming for improved water efficiency would be more likely to employ engineers and/or 

landscape architects. In addition, if a National Water Plan was advanced as a national priority with a concerted widespread focus, manufacturers would be more 

likely to invest in research and development to meet these priorities-thus increasing 

demand for various types of scientists and engineers. 

On-site treatment of wastewater or use of graywater systems also could become 

more widespread, with an expanded focus on water efficiency. Employment of such 

systems would require plumbing engineers, plumbers, microbiologists, sampling and 

laboratory technicians, operations and maintenance providers, and others. 

While there is limited definitive information available on how many plumbing 

products are made domestically, Plumbing Manufacturers International (which represents companies responsible for 80 percent of the plumbing products distributed 

and/or produced in the United States ) reports that its membership has manufacturing facilities in 20 states. In addition to product manufacturing, the distribution 

and retail sales of products impact state and local economies across the country. 

While not an exhaustive list, prominent companies such as Kohler, Moen, American 

Standard and Delta manufacture most if not all of their plumbing products in the 
37 

United States. These companies and other U.S.-based manufacturers produce the 

majority of plumbing products used in the United States. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. As I indicated at the end of the hearing, the Institute would be pleased to begin the discussion on establishment of a National Water Policy that could begin to address many 

of the issues raised by me and other witnesses. We will be reaching out to your offices in the near future to assure that you are aware of the progress of this effort 

and to get your input as it develops. 

Please consider the Institute as a resource as you address additional buildingsrelated issues. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HENRY L. GREEN, HON. AIA, 

President. 

RESPONSES OF DANIEL W. BENA TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SHAHEEN

Question 1. You highlight the real environmental benefits that PepsiCo’s sustainable initiatives can deliver, but could you elaborate on what these initiatives mean 

to PepsiCo from a business perspective? What are the reasons PepsiCo invests in 

these types of initiatives? 

Answer. First, and foremost, sustainability initiatives help grow our business and 

strengthen our social license to operate. They allow us the opportunity to help ensure PepsiCo will continue to flourish 10, 20, or 100 years from now. 

Many companies mistakenly identify sustainability initiatives as something that 

sit apart from the business, when, in fact, these efforts must be considered as a part 

of the business, in every sense. This is the core principle in our operating model 

at PepsiCo called Performance with Purpose. We are guided by Performance with 

Purpose, because doing what’s right for people and our planet leads to a more successful future for PepsiCo. It’s our commitment to sustained growth with a focus on 

Performance, Human, Environmental and Talent Sustainability. 

PepsiCo has a diverse set of stakeholders that demand we aggressively pursue environmentally sustainable initiatives. These audiences range from the socially responsible investment consortia, like Ceres, collectively representing trillions of dollars in assets under management; to members of local, national, and international 

governments, who are interested in innovative partnerships with the private sector; 

to non-governmental organizations, like non-profits and academics, who understand 

the value that the private sector can bring to global crises, such as water and climate insecurity but who at the same time hold businesses accountable. In addition, 

our PepsiCo shareholders expect healthy financial returns on their investment in 

our stock, and the productivity gains afforded by successful environmental sustainability programs are an important part of this performance. Also, our customers are 

increasing their expectations of the environmental stewardship of their supply chain 

partners, of which PepsiCo is a part. Finally, our consumers across the world are 

consistently redefining and raising their expectations of environmental stewardship 

and the private sector’s responsibility within this sphere. 

Within PepsiCo’s Global Operations, we have created an internal approach called 

the ‘‘Five S Framework,’’ which summarizes the business reasons for aggressively 

pursuing an environmental sustainability agenda. Specifically: 

(1) Synchronize the needs of business and society 

(2) Secure our supply chain and make it more resilient 

(3) Sustain the right to operate and grow from our stakeholders 

(4) Satisfy consumer demand 

(5) Synthesize new productivity opportunities 

Question 2. How does the implementation of water conservation programs affect 

PepsiCo’s bottom line? How much has the company saved by using water efficient 

technologies and practices? 

Answer. If we look at resource reduction more generally, over the last five years, 

our reduction of energy, water, and packaging materials has resulted in over $415 

Million in productivity savings. Approximately $200 million of this is due to water 

and energy conservation, and approximately $215 million due to package 

lightweighting that removed approximately 336 million pounds of material, with 

commensurate savings in water and fossil fuel. 

In 2011 alone, PepsiCo saved an estimated $50 million as a direct result of water 

and energy conservation practices. 

Our year-end 2011 performance of a 21 percent increase in water use efficiency 

vs. a 2006 baseline not only surpasses our 2015 goal four years early, but represents 
38 

water conservation of 16 billion liters, enough to provide the entire planet with their 

daily drinking water allotment, or fill 16 Empire State Buildings. These kinds of 

savings are critical to secure our right to operate, particularly in water-stressed 

areas. On the agricultural side of our business, our water conservation practices not only 

conserve significant volumes of water, but also help in improving yield-providing 

‘‘more crop per drop.’’ 

We should note that water conservation initiatives like those contained in S. 3552, 

the Expanding Industrial Energy and Water Efficiency Incentives Act of 2012, that 

extend tax credits to manufacturers who invest in water conservation and reuse are 

critical. It is these types of incentives that encourage businesses to develop and implement water conservation strategies. 

Question 3. Both your written and oral testimony reference ReCon. Would you 

elaborate in greater detail how this system works and how PepsiCo works with suppliers? 

Answer. At PepsiCo, ReCon is the name given to our four-stage program of global 

best practice tools for resource conservation, and is based on the old adage, ‘‘if you 

treasure it, you’ll measure it.’’ Stage One focuses on granular measurement of resource use with our manufacturing facilities. For example, on the energy side, we 

estimate how much energy each individual motor, boiler, or heat exchanger uses 

and identify areas of opportunities and develop action plans to improve performance. By sharing information through our Operations network, we can strive to 

apply best practices globally. Stage Two focuses on the major users of resources 

within the plant, based on the data obtained from Stage One. We know that compressed air and process heating represent significant use of energy within our 

plants. The systems we use to treat and purify water are often themselves major 

consumers of water. Stage Three then focuses outside of our direct operations and 

extends to our supply chain. Stage Four encompasses our entire PepsiCo enterprise. 

We constructed the first tool several years ago for energy management within our 

plants, based heavily on tools and information from the US Department of Energy. 

ReCon Energy was followed by ReCon GHG, ReCon Water, and most recently 

ReCon Solid Waste. The power of these tools comes from leveraging a common approach globally. Each has a Profiler, a tool which quantifies a plant’s resource usage 

streams and substreams, and calculates the relative values/costs of those streams. 

In the case of water, for example, our ReCon Water Profiler allows the plant to dissect its water use and then provides a mapping of the relative volumes of each 

stream, along with the relative values of each stream. The values are assigned 

based on local cost of incoming water, treatment or conditioning chemicals, energy 

used to heat or cool, and finally costs associated with discharge. 

Comparing these data allows a quantitative assessment of which streams offer the 

greatest opportunity for saving water by avoiding water use altogether, reducing the 

volume of water used, or reusing spent water. The Diagnostic, a series of customized 

audit-type questions, then assesses whether the plant is following best practices, 

and which opportunities exist for improvement. 

In addition, since 2008, PepsiCo has executed a strategic engagement program 

with suppliers in North America. By the end of 2011, the program included 50 suppliers representing over 120 facilities. These suppliers leveraged the ReCon program 

to deliver a single-year 2.5 percent improvement in thermal energy efficiency, 7 percent improvement in electrical energy efficiency and an 18.7 percent reduction in 

waste-to-landfill. This corresponds to an estimated productivity improvement of 

nearly $2 million in 2011. Moreover, from 2007-2010, during the inaugural launch 

of our supplier outreach program, suppliers demonstrated an average 22 percent improvement in water use efficiency, on average. 

Based on the success of the program in North America, we expanded the strategic 

engagement initiative to suppliers in South America and Europe in 2011. We anticipate similar results and would be happy to share them with the committee once 

they are available. 

Question 4. I’m interested to learn more about PepsiCo’s sustainable agriculture 

program and the irrigation strategies employed to conserve water. How are these 

strategies assisting in water scarce areas and how effective would they be in 

drought ridden areas of the United States? 

Answer. PepsiCo’s vision for sustainable agriculture is about increasing productivity and reducing risk for the benefit of our farmers and supply chain. Solutions 

to agricultural efficiency and productivity issues resulting from our environment demand that we ask and answer tough questions such as the impact of climate 

change. 

We know we can effect change with our growers, because we have direct touchpoints with them. For example, in 2010, we began the Sustainable Farming Initia-
39 

tive, a program that defines standardized metrics for sustainable agriculture and 

can be applied to any country, any crop, any size land base and for any farmer, 

large or small. It consists of establishing best practices within three pillars: environmental, social and economic. We started identifying sustainability indicators within 

the environmental pillar in 2011. Since then, nine indicators have been identified, 

including: soil, water, air, energy, agrochemicals, nutrients, GHGs, waste and biodiversity. Detailed criteria and best practices are being developed to address each 

one of the nine indicators. We are in the process of developing the social and economic pillars, which include identifying indicators covering health and safety, employment practices and working conditions, among others. We expect to launch the 

complete program globally in 2013 and are striving for our growers and agricultural 

suppliers to be compliant with the program by 2020. 

Even more basic, and a core part of our Sustainable Agriculture Policy, the Sustainable Farming Initiative, and our day-to-day agricultural practices in the field 

with our growers, is resource conservation. 

We continue to invest in a portfolio of water-conserving technologies and techniques here in the United States and around the world, both through our business 

and through our philanthropic arm, the PepsiCo Foundation. For example, in addition to evolving our irrigation practices from traditional flood irrigation, to central 

pivot, and ultimately to drip, we developed ‘‘i-crop’’ technology in partnership with 

the University of Cambridge in the UK. I-crop uses a variety of climatic sensors, 

GPS mapping, and root-zone water measurements, coupled with ‘‘cool farm software,’’ to deliver precisely the amount of water needed to the root zone, precisely 

when it is needed. 

The PepsiCo Foundation, in partnership with the Columbia University Earth Institute in New York City, developed a low-cost device called a tensiometer, which 

is a soil moisture probe currently being tested by thousands of farmers in India, and 

which is showing water savings in excess of 20 percent over traditional methods. 

In China, PepsiCo is one of the largest agriculture-related enterprises, investing 

more than RMB 200 million (equivalent to more than USD 31 million) in local agricultural development. These investments, supported by PepsiCo’s proven expertise 

in crop plantation and irrigation, have benefited more than 10,000 rural Chinese 

households and created a win-win solution for local farmers and the company. Examples include: 

• A PepsiCo pilot farm in Inner Mongolia has used advanced irrigation technologies to transform desert into fertile potato farmland. 

• The average yield of PepsiCo’s potato farms in China has increased to 45 tons 

per hectare, meeting the global standard. 

• PepsiCo has achieved up to 50 percent reduction in water consumption in potato 

cultivation by implementing advanced irrigation techniques. 

The use of drip irrigation techniques in the cultivation of potatoes in India has 

the potential to reduce on farm water usage by as much as 50 percent. In addition 

to the considerable water savings, drip irrigation helps to increase yields without 

additional labor requirements, which results in overall cost savings. From 2008 to 

2011, PepsiCo developed and expanded the drip irrigation technique to include 2,787 

acres in four states (Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka), with plans to 

reach 4,000 acres in 2012. Farmers are provided with low-cost loans to cover costs, 

and PepsiCo has commitments to buy back potatoes as part of its supply chain. 

We continue to leverage these approaches here in the United States across our 

supply chain. Over a ten-year period, our Frito-Lay business in the US reduced onfarm water usage by 715 Million gallons/year, reduced on-farm fuel usage by 250 

thousand gallons/year, and reduced on-farm fertilizer use by 3.3 Million pounds/ 

year. 

Question 5. With different PepsiCo facilities across the country, how do the various water utility practices influence your efforts to conserve water? What have been 

the most effective programs? 

Answer. As local businesses, we know the unique aspects of our communities, particularly as it relates to local water resources. In the United States, close to 100 

percent of our facilities support local/municipal infrastructure systems as an industrial supply customer. In virtually every case, our plant production teams establish 

relationships with the municipality early in the process, so that we can be alerted 

of any issue that may impact supply. Similarly, we alert them of any unusual conditions which might impact their operations on the raw water side, or with regard 

to wastewater treatment. 

This collaborative relationship between utilities and water users, like PepsiCo, 

should be considered among the most effective best practices. 
40 

The current drought experienced throughout the United States provides an excellent example. Like any customer, drought impacts us, and we generally cease any 

non-critical water use consistent with drought management. In addition, we work 

with other companies in the beverage sector, through the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER), to develop drought preparedness guidelines for our 

sector. It is during these times that a solid relationship and frequent dialog between 

utilities and its users is advantageous. 

It is worth noting that one of the trends that we have witnessed, particularly with 

smaller utilities, is that when our manufacturing facilities reduce water usage in 

any given year, it is not uncommon for the water rates to increase the next year 

commensurate with the water reductions we have effected. This is understandable 

from the perspective of sustaining the utility operations budget, but, at the same 

time, can be counter-incentivizing to further incremental resource reduction by the 

user. 

Alternatively, higher water prices could actually help justify acceptable returns on 

investments (ROI) for water conserving technology, like various forms of membrane 

treatment. So, accurate valuation of water across the board and across all industries 

needs further assessment. 

Further exploration into solutions to these scenarios would be of benefit to both 

the utilities and the end users in the long term. 

RESPONSE OF DANIEL W. BENA TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. Please describe the areas that should be further researched to better 

understand interconnectedness between water and energy. 

Answer. The hearing explicitly made the case that it takes energy to treat and 

move water, and it takes water to produce energy. Yet, too often, water use efficiency and energy efficiency are addressed separately. Admittedly, significant and 

positive impact can be achieved by pursuing efficiency improvements in water or energy individually. However, there is a growing trend in the environmental arena to 

better understand the true synergy of addressing water and energy use togetherthe so-called ‘‘water:energy nexus.’’ 

We suggest that a third leg should be added to this discussion-food security. If 

interested parties can begin to address the water: energy: food nexus holistically, 

using a ‘‘systems approach,’’ we believe that significant impacts can be realized. 

For example, in certain regions of the United States, water tables are declining. 

A farmer’s response-or that of the utility that provides water to the farmer-is understandably to dig a deeper well. At just over eight pounds per gallon, the deeper the 

well, the more energy it takes to abstract that water used to grow the crop. At some 

point, additional pumps and pipelines will be needed to keep agricultural fields and 

cities hydrated almost certainly increasing costs to both water and energy use and 

thus increasing the cost of the food grown. Similarly, just as more energy is needed 

to abstract water, more water is often used to produce that energy. This in turn 

makes less water available for cultivation and places an even greater burden on our 

farms. 

More research is needed to better understand the innovative methods needed to 

encourage mutually beneficial conservation efforts, i.e., growing a food crop, using 

less water, and conserving energy (or increasing the use of renewables). Too often, 

attention is directed toward rewarding a single aspect of the nexus, such as energy 

efficiency, despite the fact that water conservation plays an equally important role. 

ALLIANCE FOR WATER EFFICIENCY, 

Chicago, IL, August 15, 2012. 

Hon. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 

Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. MIKE LEE, 

Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN SHAHEEN AND RANKING MEMBER LEE: 

The Alliance for Water Efficiency is a broad-based stakeholder non-profit organization composed of 365 water supply utilities, business and industry stakeholders, 

environmental groups, and government agencies committed to promoting the efficient and sustainable use of water throughout North America. We believe that conserving water and using it efficiently is critical to ensuring that water resources are 
41 

* All figures have been retained in subcommittee files. 

available now and in the future to support healthy economies, ecosystems, communities, and individuals. 

The Alliance was pleased to appear before the Subcommittee on Water and Power 

on July 25, 2012 to testify on our work on water and energy nexus issues. We have 

received follow-up questions from you, and we are pleased to provide answers as indicated below. 

If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely yours, 

MARY ANN DICKINSON, 

President and CEO. 

RESPONSES OF MARY ANN DICKINSON TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR SHAHEEN

Question 1. You mention the relationship between energy and water and the 

amount of energy embedded in water and wastewater treatment. Why is there such 

a wide range in the amount of embedded energy and what causes the disparity? 

Answer. The amount of energy consumed by drinking water pumping and treatment, as well as wastewater pumping and treatment, varies significantly from 

water system to water system. The amount of energy needed varies because of physical constraints such as topography; technical constraints such as type of pumps and 

type of treatment processes; and the length of distances over which water needs to 

be pumped. It further varies by type of water supply source: surface water withdrawal; imported or transferred water; pumped groundwater; recycled water; or 

desalinated water. Each supply source will have a ‘‘signature’’ of how much energy 

is used between system input and eventual discharge, and it is essential to know 

the total energy signature in order to understand which supply sources use the most 

energy. 

Beginning in 2005, the California Energy Commission conducted detailed work 

that showed the range of embedded energy in water and wastewater in California 

is between 2,000 kWh to 20,000 kWh per million gallons (MG) of water produced. 

The figure* below shows where energy is used in each phase of the pumping and 

treatment cycle. The most energy-intensive range is in water treatment, sometimes 

going up to 16,000 kWh/MG. The type of treatment is also a factor, with microfiltration being typically the most energy intensive treatment process. 

Conveyance of water over long distances is similarly a high energy user, and thus 

the supply source is important too, with its own embedded energy signature. In my 

home community of Lake Arrowhead, California, the amount of energy needed for 

three different water supply sources varies greatly. When water is withdrawn and 

consumed from Lake Arrowhead itself, the embedded energy value of the pumping 

and treatment, including wastewater collection and treatment, is around 8,984 kWh/ 

MG, based on an examination of the electric bills. When the water comes from 

groundwater wells, the embedded energy number is not too dissimilar: 8,873 kWh/ 

MG. But when the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District has to buy additional water from California’s State Water Project, the embedded energy number 

skyrockets to 24,991 kWh/MG. Clearly the imported water—which has to be pumped 

great distances over high elevations—is a very serious energy consumer as well as 

extremely expensive water. 

Thus, it is critical that each water system compute its embedded energy numbers 

for all its pumping and treatment types, as well as for each one of its water supply 

sources, to see if there is high variation. Once this information is known, efficiency 

programs can be designed to optimize utility operations and to minimize the amount 

of energy needed for the highest energy-using supply source. Table 2 in my testimony gives a summary of all the various energy inputs that came out of the California research. This information is what needs to be aggregated and computed for 

each water system. 

The high variability in embedded energy in drinking water and wastewater systems is a significant national issue because very little data exists on the regional 

variations across the country. It is imperative that we gather better information on 

the amount of energy being consumed by water and wastewater utilities, as well as 

their customers, so that appropriate efficiency programs are designed and implemented. 

Question 2. I am interested in the work of the 75 organizations involved in the 

water-energy arena to identify recommendations for national and state officials in 

the areas of policy and research. What are some of the recommendations from the 

Blueprint for Action that might be relevant for this committee? 
42 

1 Addressing the Water-Energy Nexus: A Blueprint for Action and Policy Agenda, May, 2011. 

Alliance for Water Efficiency and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. http:// 

www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/blueprint.aspx 2http://www.energydataweb.com/cpucFiles/33/FinalEmbeddedEnergyPilotEMVReport—1.pdf 

Answer. The Blueprint for Action1 included policy as well as programmatic recommendations for moving the water-energy nexus issue forward. There were nine 

specific policy recommendations that we believe would be relevant for this committee’s consideration and that we are hoping will be the subject of future legislation: 

1. Encourage the implementation of regulatory structures and incentives that 

reward water and energy efficiency, including by establishing mechanisms to 

recognize the benefits of water and energy savings by programs, and consider 

setting water-saving targets for utilities, just as many states have energy-saving targets for utilities. 

2. Encourage the Department of Energy to implement appliance and equipment standards on water-using appliances and equipment, and provide appropriate credit for direct and indirect water impacts in setting performance standards. 

3. Develop, enact, and implement building codes that recognize water and energy efficiency. 

4. Develop and propose specific energy-water elements to add to existing federal legislation, such as the Water Resources Development Act, the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, and the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. 

5. Develop and propose tax incentives for water and energy efficiency, preferably performance-based. 

6. Direct and provide resources to such federal bodies as the Energy Information Administration, national laboratories, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Census Bureau, the Department of Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency to collect water and energy end-use data from across 

sectors and to extend existing and future energy policy analyses to include 

water impacts where possible. 

7. Identify a platform enabling energy and water regulatory and governance 

bodies to communicate with each other readily. 

8. Encourage increased collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies 

in such areas as the integrating of water and energy efficiency through the use 

of grant funding, research, regulation, and technical assistance from the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 

Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

9. Require coordination between energy and water regulatory authorities 

when considering siting of new power plants or significantly expanding existing 

power plants. 

RESPONSES OF MARY ANN DICKINSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. Please describe the energy and water savings directly tied to repairing 

aging water infrastructure. 

Answer. With water supply having so much embedded energy in it because of 

pumping and treatment, a utility that leaks a large amount of treated water out 

of its distribution system is not only losing money but losing valuable energy. This 

issue was studied by the California Public Utilities Commission in 2007-2009, when 

they appropriated $10 million to fund various water-efficiency pilot programs across 

the state. Nine pilot programs were jointly conducted between electric and water 

utilities, and a third-party contractor was hired to evaluate the results. The purpose 

of the pilots was to determine how much energy credit could be given for energy 

saved in ‘‘cold’’ water conservation programs, and what the potential for long-term 

energy savings would be if these water efficiency programs were adopted on a more 

widespread basis. 

After three years of study, the results showed that of the nine pilot programs, the 

pilots with the highest energy savings were distribution system leak detection and 

low-income high efficiency toilets. The distribution system leak detection pilot was 

run by Southern California Edison in three demonstration communities, and the results showed that this particular program appeared to offer the greatest energy savings potential (at relatively low cost) out of the other nine pilot programs. In particular, the energy savings documented in this report are based on leaks that were 

actually repaired during the program period. The potential achievable water (and 

energy) savings were estimated to be much higher by the program implementation 

contractor.2 The numbers from the study are as follows: 
43 

3 Addressing the Water-Energy Nexus: A Blueprint for Action and Policy Agenda, May, 2011. 

Alliance for Water Efficiency and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. http:// 

www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/blueprint.aspx 

1. The total amount of economically recoverable leakage for the three demonstration communities ranges from 60 to 116 million gallons per year. 

2. The total amount of embedded energy saved in the three systems— from 

repaired leaks—was 178,143 kWh. 

3. The total amount of potential energy that could be saved with proactive 

leak detection and management in the three communities is as high as 583,277 

kWh. 

Although this is only one study in one state, it shows the incredible promise presented by repairing aging leaking infrastructure. To date there is no federal program incentivizing this important activity. 

Question 2. Please describe the relationships that are needed between water and 

electric utilities to better understand the water energy nexus. 

Answer. The Alliance for Water Efficiency and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy decided to partner on the Blueprint for Action because there 

was no existing relationship of any kind between water and electric utilities to explore the water-energy issues. We wanted to begin a dialogue and start implementing joint projects that would get both sets of utility mangers out of their respective silos. A clear beginning is conducting joint research, but a longer term relationship on actually implementing joint efficiency programs is also needed. 

The specific steps that we believe need to be taken to forge a good relationship 

are as follows: 

1. Increase the level of collaboration between the water and energy communities in planning and implementing programs. 

2. Achieve a deeper understanding of the energy embedded in water and the 

water embedded in energy. 

3. Learn from and replicate best practice integrated energy-water efficiency 

programs. 

4. Integrate water into energy research efforts and vice versa. 

5. Separate water utility revenues from unit sales, and consider regulatory 

structures that provide an incentive for investing in end-use water and energy 

efficiency. 

6. Leverage existing and upcoming voluntary standards that address the energy-water nexus. 

7. Implement codes and mandatory standards that address the energy-water 

nexus. 

8. Pursue education and awareness opportunities for various audiences and 

stakeholders. 

The Blueprint for Action3 report goes into more detail on each of these areas. 

RESPONSES OF GP RUSS CHANEY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SHAHEEN

Question 1. You mention that the Federal government should provide incentives 

to help local communities adopt and enforce green codes. How do you envision such 

incentives working to improve water and energy efficiencies? 

Answer. Here in the United States, we develop our codes and standards from the 

bottom up, meaning that the best subject matter experts, along with the stakeholders that are most affected by the contents of our codes and standards, get together, and in a transparent and consensus based process we develop incredibly 

comprehensive provisions that make up our construction codes and our green codes. 

However, regardless of how well codes are developed and provisions that pertain 

to energy and water efficiency are deliberated in the process, they will have no impact at all unless updated codes are adopted and rigorously enforced at the applicable State or municipal level. 

Currently, many jurisdictions are delaying the adoption of codes because we lack 

the agreed upon metrics to articulate a return on investment (ROI) for implementing updated codes. Hence, delaying the adoption of updated codes is often erroneously viewed as a cost avoidance measure. 

The Federal government can assist by having the Department of Energy review 

updated codes and provide credible guidance in terms of ROI and also articulate the 

peripheral ecological benefits of the energy saving provisions contained in the updated code or voluntary green code. Such information will provide all stakeholders 
44 

at the municipal level with the factual information they need to fully understand 

the financial tradeoffs and benefits of adopting codes that contain water and energy 

efficiency provisions. 

This would be particularly effective for green codes that address water efficiency 

as the incorporation of water efficient technologies, such as high efficiency plumbing 

fixtures and fittings and solar thermal technologies can be installed with minimal 

capital outlay, especially in new construction, yet provide water and energy efficiencies for the life of the building. 

In addition, due to the economic squeeze that many municipal governments are 

being challenged with, they are often cutting back on the thorough inspection and 

enforcement of energy efficiency provisions, and focusing enforcement inspections on 

the life safety elements of the code only (fire safety, egress provisions, etc.). 

Here, the Federal government can assist by providing financial incentives to municipalities for hiring properly trained code enforcement inspectors to staff levels 

where water and energy code provisions can be properly inspected and enforced. 

Question 2. In your comments, you alluded to the need to support research for 

less invasive sub-metering technologies. Can you please elaborate on this and say 

why this is important in terms of yielding energy savings through water efficiency? 

Answer. IAPMO currently has a Memorandum of Understanding with the American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) to arrive at updated pipe sizing requirements for buildings that take into account the new, lower consumption levels of today’s plumbing fixtures and appliances, which are much lower than the consumption levels of those devices that were made as recently as 20 years ago. 

This gives us a huge opportunity to reduce the diameter of the pipes in our buildings, which would provide essentially free water and energy savings by reducing the 

volume of water between the water heaters or boilers in a building and the point 

of use. While this sounds easy to do on the surface, what we have learned in our 

efforts with ASPE is that in order to accomplish this goal, we need to understand 

how water is being used in various building types. Armed with this knowledge, we 

can then arrive at the correct statistical formulas to determine the most efficient 

pipe sizing requirements for buildings in our codes. 

The statistical formula currently used in our codes were developed by Dr. Roy 

Hunter who worked at the National Bureau of Standards, now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) back in the 1920’s through the 1940’s. We 

again need the leadership and brain power of the Federal Government in assisting 

with this complex issue. Every building that is constructed employing smart-pipesizing plumbing systems will yield a lifetime of water and energy savings with zero 

added cost. 

IAPMO stands ready to work with the Federal government and other stakeholders to gain a better understanding about how water is being used in different 

building types so that we can make our plumbing systems efficient as possible while 

maintaining health and safety and ensuring system efficacy. 

Question 3. You referred to ‘‘smart’’ water in your testimony. What sort of similarities do you see between a smart water infrastructure and smart grid and how can 

IAPMO assist in a smart water initiative? 

Answer. As plumbing code developers, we are certainly not experts regarding the 

technical merits or capabilities of a smart electrical grid. However, in our view, 

there are conceptual similarities in functionality that can be shared. Specifically, a 

smart water distribution system would contain sensors to alert the owners of the 

system to a catastrophic leak or failure and allow for the isolation of such a failure 

in order to minimize the disruption of service to users, minimize water waste and 

also mitigate the potential for contaminates to infiltrate the whole distribution system. 

It is also important to note, that as code developers, our area of jurisdiction and 

expertise is contained to plumbing systems in buildings, and not to water distribution systems. Leak detection technologies can also be used in building plumbing systems to provide real time feedback to building managers, enabling the repair of otherwise insidious leaks that not only waste water and energy but can also damage 

other building elements if left unrepaired. 

IAPMO can assist by working within our compliance based code development 

process to help codify such smart technologies and, assuming such provisions are 

adopted by our members, require their installation in new construction. 

Question 4. How can IAPMO collaborate with major water utilities to provide a 

unified water efficiency and conservation message to the American public? 

Answer. When we consider our looming water crisis, it becomes apparent that 

much is needed in the way of public education and awareness. As mentioned during 

the hearing, we need to initiate a candid discussion about water with the American 

consumer. 
45 

IAPMO stands ready to work with water utilities across the country, both large 

and small, and with Federal government entities such as the EPA WaterSense division, towards the development of consumer awareness and education materials that 

can be included in utility bill and made available on the internet. 

Our role in such an effort would be to advise home owners and commercial building owners regarding water efficiency technologies that can reduce consumption and 

save them money, while also making sure that these technologies are installed in 

a manner that ensures safety and meets plumbing code provisions. 

RESPONSES OF GP RUSS CHANEY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR LEE

Question 1. Please describe the similarities and differences between the water 

‘‘grid’’ and the electric grid. How are these two connected? 

Answer. As we mentioned in our response to one of Senator Shaheen’s questions, 

as plumbing code developers, we are certainly not experts regarding the technical 

merits or capabilities of a smart electrical grid. Having said that, as we gain better 

understanding of the nexus between water and energy it becomes increasingly clear 

that efforts to foster water efficiency also yield surprising energy efficiencies and 

vice versa. 

Question 2. What are the unknowns between the interconnectedness of the two 

that could be important for policy makers at the local, state and federal levels? 

Answer. Currently, we lack data regarding exactly how much water is being used 

to generate electrical power, and conversely, how much energy is utilized in the 

treatment, distribution, heating and waste treatment of water. Only the State of 

California has calculated how much energy is embedded in these water based processes. Simply communicating and illustrating what we do know about this interconnectedness to decision makers at all levels of government, and keeping them appraised of findings as additional studies are conducted, such that they can better 

appreciate the ‘‘low hanging fruit’’ of energy savings through water efficiency will 

yield very significant water and energy savings. 

Question 3. Could you please elaborate on the process you undertake to get accreditation for your codes? 

Answer. IAPMO is accredited by the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) to develop the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), Uniform Mechanical Code 

(UMC), Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code (USPC), and the Uniform 

Solar Energy Code (USEC) as American National Standards. Accreditation by ANSI 

means that IAPMO utilizes consensus code development processes which have been 

determined by ANSI to contain all of the essential requirements for due process 

which ANSI mandates be present in order to designate the document as an American National Standard. These essential requirements include, but are not limited 

to, the right that any person (organization, company, government agency, individual, etc.) with a direct and material interest in the subject matter be permitted 

to participate in the development of the document by: 

(a) expressing a position and its basis; 

(b) having that position considered; and 

(c) having the right to appeal. 

ANSI also requires that the development process provide for: 

• Openness—participation shall be open to all persons who are directly and materially affected by the activity; 

• Lack of dominance—the standards development process shall not be dominated 

by any single interest category, individual or organization; and 

• Balance—the standards development process shall have a balance of interests. 

The aforementioned IAPMO codes are developed utilizing committees of technical 

subject matter experts and others who debate and discuss the subject matter until 

the committee reaches consensus (not less than two-thirds of voting members). The 

committees are balanced, open and the development process is not dominated by 

any single interest category. All members of the public are welcome to participate 

in the process. The committee considers and provides a substantive response to all 

comments submitted by the public. 

In 2011, after conducting an extensive audit, ANSI determined that IAPMO had 

achieved a consistent record of successful voluntary code development of the aforementioned codes and ANSI conferred ‘‘audited designator’’ status upon IAPMO 

thereby empowering IAPMO to designate the aforementioned codes as American National Standards without the need for additional review by the ANSI Board of 

Standards Review. 
46 

Question 4. Are you aware if the Department of Energy has made water a consideration in any energy related regulations? 

Answer. Largely, the Department of Energy (DOE) has long ignored water and/ 

or the imbedded energy within water as a component of its regulations. In working 

with many DOE staff, we have heard them state on many occasions that they are 

directed to look at direct energy, not indirect energy. Many forward-thinking staff 

at DOE have stated their desire to look at other energy savings potential, such as 

water, but there has not been much movement in that direction. We do know that 

agency staff have claimed they do not have the authority needed from congress to 

look at the imbedded energy within water. 

Question 5. In 2010, Battelle Memorial Institute released a study on the energy 

efficiency impacts of hard water. The study concluded that scale formed by hard 

water can lead to as much as a 24 percent loss of energy efficiency in water heaters 

and that treatment with water softeners preserved the original factory efficiency 

ratings of water heaters over a 15-year lifetime. Are you familiar with this study 

and its conclusions? 

Answer. The WQA / Battelle study was provided to our Green Technical Committee and was considered in the development of certain provisions contained in the 

IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement. As such, yes, we are familiar with this study and its conclusions. 

Question 6. Based on these types of results and the potential impact of hard water 

on energy efficiency, do you believe that reducing or eliminating scale is an important factor in allowing appliances such as water heaters to maintain their Energy 

Star ratings? 

Answer. Clearly, reducing the buildup of scale in water heaters impacts the efficiency of water heaters whether it is an Energy Star labeled product or not. Scale 

also robs energy and water efficiency by clogging plumbing fixture fittings such as 

faucets and showerheads. However, the Green Technical Committee did find cause 

for concern with the WQA / Battelle study in terms of the water quality of the test 

water selected to conduct this study and with the recommendations that water softeners should be installed even in areas of very low water hardness levels. 

We know that water softeners can reduce scale and thereby help maintain efficiency levels in water heaters. However, there is a downside to water softeners that 

needs to be taken into account as well. Most require the addition of salts. 

Backwashing these systems consumes water and produces a brine that increases salinity levels in wastewater and increase the utility costs to treat the water. As a 

result, some wastewater utilities are currently not allowing the installation of salt 

consuming water softeners in their jurisdictions. 

It is interesting that you bring up this topic, Senator, as this is a prime example 

of the type of water efficiency research that is needed. We currently lack the metrics 

to arrive at an accurate accounting of these types of tradeoffs and determine where 

it makes sense to install water softeners (and similar technologies) and where they 

may cause more harm than good. 

Question 7. It is understood that IAPMO is currently working with industry to 

develop a standard test procedure for ant-scale technologies. Such a test procedure 

would greatly enhance the opportunities for these technologies within federal energy 

efficiency programs. Can you tell us what the status is of this effort and when you 

anticipate the test procedure being finalized? 

Answer. Yes, Senator, we are happy to report that there has been a high level 

of interest in this IAPMO initiative. We are currently developing IAPMO Standard 

Z601, Scale Reduction Devices. This standard is currently being vetted by the 

IAPMO Plumbing Standards Committee. It is expected that the test protocol validation and subsequent formal approval of the standard will take about one year; 

therefore, the Z601 standard should be published in the early fall of 2013. 
(47) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 

Washington, DC, August, 8, 2012. 

Hon. JEAN SHAHEEN, 

Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on 

Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. MIKE LEE, 

Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee 

on Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

The International Code Council is pleased to address the critical issue of the energy and water efficiency relationship. We wish to extend our appreciation to the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources, Water and Power Subcommittee, and to 

Chairman Shaheen and Ranking Member Lee for providing the opportunity to comment. 

The International Code Council (ICC) is a member-focused association dedicated 

to helping the building safety community and construction industry provide safe and 

sustainable construction. We do so through the development of model building codes 

and standards used in the design, build and compliance process nationwide. Most 

U.S. communities and many global markets adopt ICC’s International Codes (ICodes). Presently, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the ICodes at the state or jurisdictional level. Federal agencies including the Architect 

of the Capitol, General Services Administration, National Park Service, Department 

of State, U.S. Forest Service and the Veterans Administration also enforce the ICodes for the facilities that they own or manage. 

The relationship between water and energy use has long been recognized in many 

sectors, yet in the United States, we have traditionally addressed each topic individually. There are three primary categories for this energy/water relationship, each 

with different stakeholders and drivers. 

• Centralized Water Supply and Treatment • Water Point of Use Applications • Energy Recovery from Wastewater 

Centralized Treatment 

Since the 1950’s an increasing percentage of Americans and businesses receive 

water supplies and wastewater treatment from centralized, permitted facilities. Energy is consumed in the transport of water to the treatment facility, in the treatment of the water itself, and in the delivery of potable water to the customer. The 

amount of energy consumed in transport will depend significantly on the terrain 

and distance between the source and the water treatment facility. This accounts for 

the fact that the California State Water Project, which pumps water over the 

Tehachapi Mountains to users in the southern part of the state, is California’s largest power consumer. Notably, future energy consumption for transporting water is 

likely to be even higher as population centers are forced to reach farther afield for 

sources of water. Treatment too draws significant amounts of energy, and future energy consumption is also likely to rise as water purveyors are forced to use lower 

quality sources. One extreme in this regard is desalination, which consumes significant quantities of energy using current technology. 

Reduced demand for water resulting from water efficiency measures can provide 

immediate energy savings from both transport and treatment. Even modest water 

efficiency measures implemented on a community scale through green codes like 

ICC’s International Green Construction Code (IgCC) can produce measureable energy savings for water purveyors. They can also delay or eliminate the need for the 

construction of expensive new treatment and pumping infrastructure. 
48 

Opportunities exist for similar savings by utilizing more decentralized water 

sources and treatment. This involves the use of alternate onsite water sources such 

as collected rainwater, graywater, and HVAC condensate to offset or eliminate the 

need for conventional centralized supplies with their embedded energy. While these 

systems are promising, care must be taken to protect the health and safety of the 

consumer through the use of codes like the IgCC and science-based standards. Research and development is also needed to ensure that the implementation of alternate onsite systems community wide does not consume more energy than a comparable centralized system. 

Point of Use Applications 

It is the end use of water that determines the overall demand within a region, 

and therefore sets the total energy consumed by a centralized treatment system. 

Therefore, the less water consumed by homes, office buildings, industry, and agriculture, the less energy that will be consumed by water purveyors treating and 

pumping water. 

There are many applications where reductions in water consumption directly reduce energy demand at the point of use. The majority of public supply water is delivered to commercial and residential buildings, and ICC’s model codes provide the 

basis for the construction of almost all of these buildings in the United States. 

As a result, ICC’s model codes and standards are uniquely positioned to provide 

immediate and measurable savings when implemented in jurisdictions. For example, reductions in hot water consumption carries with it proportional energy savings, 

all other things being equal. If a traditional showerhead is replaced with a 

WaterSense certified showerhead consuming 20 percent less water, as required in 

the IgCC, 20 percent less energy is required to heat the water (assuming the duration and temperature of the water stay the same). Within ICC’s family of model 

building codes, such provisions aimed jointly at water and energy appear first in the 

base codes, like the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential 

Code(IRC), International Plumbing Code(IPC), and International Mechanical 

Code(IMC). High-performance model codes, such as the International Energy Efficiency Code (IECC) and the International Green Construction Code (IgCC), can provide even more savings. 

Within ICC’s family of codes, provisions that save water and energy can be found 

for: 

• Bathing water (showers/baths) 

• Pre-rinse spray valves 

• Evaporative cooling towers 

• Hot water distribution plumbing systems 

• Dishwashers 

• Clotheswashers 

• Humidification systems 

• Carwash systems 

Notably, the development of codes and standards for many of these technologies 

are evolving rapidly. ICC’s code process is designed to reliably and predictably update all of our model codes every three years, to incorporate new technology, recognize cost saving techniques and systems, and to adopt alternative methods of 

achieving safe and sustainable buildings. But the codes have no impact on buildings, 

or on water and energy use, unless they are adopted and enforced by the state and 

local jurisdictions with authority to regulate building construction. 

Therefore the importance of communities adopting updated and current building 

codes cannot be overstated. Even relatively recent editions of the codes do not contain provisions for many new water and energy innovations. Failure to update codes 

may leave communities ill-prepared to safely implement new technologies and systems and the benefits they can bring when properly implemented. Both for financial 

reasons, and sometimes due to the opposition of groups who want to avoid the first 

cost of some code requirements, some jurisdictions have delayed adopting current 

codes. In many jurisdictions, the codes are 10 or more years old, and do not reflect 

current energy and water realities. 

To promote the adoption of current building, sustainability, electrical and life 

safety codes, ICC and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) founded the 

Coalition for Current Safety Codes (CCSC). Dozens of safety, environmental, and 

business organizations, as well as hundreds of individuals, have joined this coalition 

to remind states and local governments of the importance of regular code review. 

Federal support for the adoption of updated model codes, through both example 

and incentives, is essential for the safe implementation of water and energy conservation measures of various types, and the federal government should continue ef-
49 

forts to support the adoption of current codes. Federal agencies have long been leaders in adopting the latest codes and standards to assure long term sustainability 

and safety of Federal buildings, and that leadership should be supported and encouraged. 

Coordination between the codes is also of critical importance. When building, 

plumbing, mechanical, energy and green codes are designed to work together 

seamlessly; the greatest opportunity to support water and energy savings in the 

built environment is realized. For this reason, ICC promulgates a coordinated family 

of codes that ensure that provisions impacting energy or water are coordinated. This 

is the best way to avoid unintended negative consequences to water or energy-related codes, and to take advantage of positive interactions between disciplines. 

The IgCC, a new model code first issued as a 2012 edition, takes the water/energy 

relationship one step farther than traditional model codes, and seeks to balance the 

interactions between all elements of sustainability in a building. Developed in partnership with the American Institute of Architects and ASTM International, it features the ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA 189.1 standard as an alternate compliance path. 

This model code takes a balanced approach to sustainability, and ICC recommends 

it as a framework for sustainability in federal facilities and future legislation. 

Energy Recovery from Wastewater 

The final category in the energy/water relationship involves the recovery of energy 

from wastewater streams. Here, thermal and nutrient energy contained within 

wastewater is treated as a resource to be utilized, rather than waste alone. At the 

point of use, drainwater heat recovery can be used to recover thermal energy in 

wastewater to preheat incoming water. Nutrients and chemicals in wastewater 

streams can be mined using various technologies to extract energy in various forms. 

This practice has already become common at wastewater treatment plants where 

the energy is used to power plant operations. New research and technologies aim 

to move that energy recovery closer to the waste source. 

Unique among green building rating systems and model codes, the IgCC addresses the emerging technologies associated with energy from wastewater, and provides 

for tools to measure such energy 

In summary 

• Promoting water efficiency for all users of public service water reduces pumping 

and treatment energy use and directly reduces energy use at the point of use. 

• Modern, coordinated building codes are a vital means of reducing both energy 

and water consumption that is immediately available. These codes are essential 

to ensure that new technologies and systems are implemented in a safe and balanced manner. Federal efforts to encourage states to update codes can produce 

measurable savings. 

STATEMENT OF PLUMBING MANUFACTURERS INTERNATIONAL, MEADOWS, IL 

On behalf of Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI), we appreciate the opportunity to submit our written statement for the record to the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power’s recent hearing on July 25, 

2012 regarding the critically important issue of water use, water efficiency and the 

impact water efficiency has upon our country’s overall energy use from the perspective of plumbing products manufacturers. 

PMI is the leading national and technical trade association of plumbing products 

manufacturers in the United States. Our 31 manufacturers and allied members are 

responsible for at least 80 percent of all the plumbing fixtures and fittings sold in 

the U.S. The majority of PMI member companies operates manufacturing facilities 

in the U.S. and produces a wide range of from sinks, toilets, and urinals to bathroom and kitchen faucets, showerheads, drinking fountains, garbage dispos≥als, as 

well as a variety of fixtures. 

Water-Efficient Plumbing Fixtures Reduce Water Consumption Levels & Wastewater 

Flows 

It takes a considerable amount of energy to deliver and treat the water we use 

every day. Heating water for bathing, shaving, cooking, and cleaning also requires 

a lot of energy. With over half of all indoor residen≥tial water use taking place in 

bathrooms and kitchens, improved water efficiency in plumbing products is central 

to our nation’s water conservation efforts. Studies continue to show that the use of 

water-efficient plumbing products is effective in saving water. 

PMI and its member companies are committed to protecting the future of our national and local water supplies through water-efficient plumbing products and prac-
50 

1Products that seek the WaterSense label must: be water-efficient, using at least 20 percent 

less water than EPA’s fixture-specific water use baseline-U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater 

Management- http://www.epa.gov/watersense/aboutllus/watersenselllabel.html 

tices. Efficient plumbing products help consumers and communities hold down the 

rising costs of additional water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure. 

Saving water also reduces the energy required to pump, heat, and treat water 

throughout the nation. Furthermore, using water more efficiently helps maintain 

water supplies at safe levels, and protects human health and the environment. 

Plumbing manufacturers are doing their part to improve water efficiency not only 

in their own manufacturing operations, but by producing an extensive number of 

water efficient plumbing products which are easily found in retail locations across 

the country. 

Growth of Water Efficient Plumbing Products & U.S. EPA’s WaterSense Program 

Our commitment to water efficiency is evident in our industry’s partnership with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) WaterSense Program. This voluntary program, launched in 2006, promotes water efficient plumbing products and 

today brings to market over 4,000 water-efficient plumbing products from high efficiency toilets, bathroom sink faucets to showerheads and urinals. These prod≥ucts 

have been consumer tested and reduce water consumption by up to 30 percent.1

PMI and its members have worked diligently with the EPA WaterSense Program 

over the past several years to develop voluntary product specifications for water efficient products. An open public process has brought together the EPA, water efficiency experts, standards developers, plumbers, and PMI member manufacturers to 

consider and balance the range of technical and performance issues unique to each 

product. When a manufacturer makes a product that meets those specifications, the 

product is eligible for third-party testing to ensure the stated efficiency and performance criteria have been met. If the product passes the test, the manufacturer is rewarded with the right to put the WaterSense label on that product. 

For companies to use the label, they must sign a WaterSense partnership agreement. Among other things, the partnership agreement defines the roles and responsibilities of EPA and the partnering organization, as well as proper use of the label 

on products, on packaging, and in marketing and other promotional materials. 

WaterSense now makes it easy for consumers, as well as builders and plumbers, 

to find and select water efficient products with a label backed by third party, independent, testing and certification. In fact, the majority of our member companies 

produce products that display the WaterSense® label. 

Rebates for Water-Efficient Plumbing Products 

Some communities have water conservation plans in place that often include residential rebates for products that reduce water use to encourage the installation of 

low-flow fixtures which typically include toilets, showerheads and bathroom faucets. 

How you obtain that rebate varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some areas give 

away free products, others give the money up front and, in a majority of cases, others require proof of purchase. There are also eligibility requirements and limits on 

the types of products. In addition to products, some utilities offer free services. For 

instance, several communities offer a free water-saving audit. 

Consumer Outreach 

PMI has developed and maintains a consumer-focused website, 

www.safeplumbing.org, featuring important facts and guidance on clean water, 

water efficiency, and health and safety in plumbing fixtures and systems. In addition, our member companies have collaborated with EPA through national ‘‘Fix- ALeak’’ Week and ‘‘We’re For Water’’ events to drive awareness of repairing leaks and 

new water-efficient products on the market. Specifically, PMI and its member companies have been actively involved in a variety of public education campaigns including—WaterSense Fix-a- Leak Week—typically held in March. Dripping faucets 

can waste up to two thousand gallons of water each year in the average home. 

Leaky toilets can waste as much as two hundred gallons per day. 

America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 

High-quality drinking water and wastewater systems are essential to public 

health, manufacturers, business, and quality of life in the U.S. Much of our drinking 

water infrastructure, the more than one million miles of pipes beneath our streets, 

is nearing the end of its useful life and approaching the age at which it needs to 

be replaced. Water pipes are leaking and bursting with alarming frequency as the 

nation’s plumbing infrastructure ages. Moreover, our shifting population brings sig-
51 

2 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge, American Water 

Works Association, Feb. 27, 2012-www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/GADocuments/ 

BuriedNoLongerCompleteFinal.pdf. 

nificant growth to some areas of the country, requiring larger pipe networks to provide water service. 

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) and other organizations have 

documented that our water and wastewater infrastructure is aging and that many 

communities must significantly increase their levels of investment in its repair and 

rehabilitation to protect public health and safety and to maintain environmental 

standards. 

According to a recent study by the AWWA2 , the cost of repairing and expanding 

the drinking water infrastructure will top $1 trillion in the next 25 years and $1.7 

trillion over 40 years. As a nation, we need to have serious conversations at the federal, state and local levels about the funding required to repair our aging water infrastructure. Deferring needed investments today will only result in greater expenses tomorrow. As manufacturers of critical plumbing products that rely on clean 

water coming from the tap, this is a critical issue facing our industry and consumers. The longer we wait to make needed repairs and upgrades, the more acute 

these problems become and the higher the costs to American families and businesses. 

Critical Plumbing Products Research 

PMI supports research currently underway to discern future efficiency levels, balanced against the ‘‘tipping point’’ at which plumbing products no longer protect the 

health and safety of consumers. In fact, PMI is currently part of the Plumbing Research Efficiency Coalition (PERC) which is undertaking a building drainline research study that will analyze the potential for blockages resulting from the use of 

reduced flow water closets in commercial buildings and evaluate the use of higher 

volume flush valve discharges at intermittent intervals as a way to effectively clear 

drainlines. 

The PERC research is intended to answer important questions about product performance and design considerations at lower flow rates. Once the research is complete, product/water efficiency questions will be able to be answered with facts and 

research data. We may, in fact, be at the practical limits of efficiency and any further reductions in efficiency levels in some consumer plumbing products, specifically 

toilets and showerheads, need to be based on scientific study in order to ensure continued efficacy and safety in addition to increased levels of water and energy efficiency. 

The funding for this study took years to secure and came from code organizations, 

a variety of trade associations, including PMI, individual plumbing manufacturing 

companies and NGOs. Unfortunately, the federal agencies declined to support this 

critical PERC research. In the future, the federal government should be involved in 

the development of key research programs and provide some financial support for 

scientific study to ensure that increasingly precious water supplies are used as efficiently as possible in buildings and homes, while maintaining health and safety. 

EPA’s WaterSense program is an essential element in the development of a water 

focused benchmarking initiative, but focuses on individual plumbing products and 

not the use of water throughout commercial buildings. 

Conclusion 

PMI member companies are committed to designing and producing water-efficient 

products, without sacrificing performance. We understand the importance of both 

water conservation and energy reduction. Our association and its members continue 

to raise the bar in developing the most advanced water efficient plumbing products 

and further our commitment to preserving our environment. Our efforts will help 

ensure reliable water supplies today and for future generations. 

We look forward to working with the committee in the 113th Congress to further 

discuss the important nexus of water efficient plumbing products and its impact on 

energy use. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding our statement, 

contact Barbara Higgens, Executive Director, Plumbing Manufacturers International. 

Æ