![\"Hand](\"http:\/\/blogs.dickinson.edu\/writingsciencenews18\/files\/2018\/02\/thumbnail.ashx_-300x184.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Are there cost benefits to conservation? It may appear to be an obvious answer, but\u00a0researchers\u00a0at the University of California Davis wanted to quantify this answer.\u00a0Spang and his co-authors investigated how much the state of\u00a0California\u00a0saved on\u00a0electricity\u00a0and\u00a0greenhouse\u00a0emission reductions after the Governor of\u00a0California\u00a0mandated\u00a0a 25%\u00a0reduction and water consumption\u00a0statewide in 2015. On\u00a0April\u00a01, 2015, Governor Brown\u00a0passed Executive Order B-29-15\u00a0in\u00a0response to the\u00a0four-year\u00a0drought that\u00a0impacted 48% of the\u00a0state’s\u00a0surface\u00a0water resources.\u00a0Consequently, the drought\u00a0impaired\u00a0542,000 acres of\u00a0land,\u00a0$2.74 billion of the state’s revenue, and approximately 21,000 jobs according to the researchers.\u00a0\u00a0This was the first bill that regulated\u00a0urban water consumption in their state history.<\/p>\n
Water and energy\u00a0are\u00a0interdependent. \u00a0Water is\u00a0needed\u00a0to produce energy for fuels and\u00a0electricity\u00a0generation. In California, energy is needed to transport water resources across the state. Additionally, energy is\u00a0needed\u00a0to treat water and\u00a0waste water. This is way the authors decided to calculate the savings for energy. By conserving energy, they can reduce greenhouse gas emitted into the air.<\/p>\n
For their study, they observed energy use from\u00a0June 2015 to May 2016.\u00a0During this time,\u00a0California\u00a0saved 524,000\u00a0million\u00a0gallons (MG) in water, which is a 24.5% decreased from their 2013 baseline. From this, California\u00a0saved\u00a0$230 MG-1\u00a0on water\u00a0conservation.\u00a0In\u00a0energy, they saved 1830\u00a0gigawatts statewide\u00a0(GWh).\u00a0\u00a0Because\u00a0of\u00a0these energy savings, they avoided\u00a0approximately\u00a0521,000 metric\u00a0ton (MT) CO2e in greenhouse gas\u00a0emission. This is\u00a0equivalent\u00a0to\u00a0taking\u00a0111,000 average cars off the road annually.<\/p>\n
The hydrologic region that saved the most was\u00a0the South Coast region (237, 200 MG), which has\u00a0populous cities like Los\u00a0Angeles\u00a0and San Diego. The North Lahontan region\u00a0(1,400 MG)\u00a0had\u00a0the lowest\u00a0savings, which has sparsely populated cities like Susanville\u00a0and Truckee, California.<\/p>\n
After comparing the general cost benefits, the researchers\u00a0compared\u00a0the cost benefits from the statewide\u00a0mandate\u00a0and the energy programs of investor-owned utilities. They found that they saved 11%\u00a0more on energy than\u00a0investor-owned\u00a0electricity\u00a0utilities’\u00a0efficiency\u00a0programs.<\/p>\n
These findings could be useful in other\u00a0advertisements\u00a0for conservation efforts. If people knew the savings and environmental benefit from this\u00a0mandate, this could encourage people to reduce consumption.<\/p>\n
Journal Citation:<\/p>\n
Spang, E.S., Holguin, A.J., Loge, F.J. 2018. The estimated impacts of California’s urban water conservation mandate on electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.\u00a0Environmental Research Letters<\/em> 13:1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Are there cost benefits to conservation? It may appear to be an obvious answer, but\u00a0researchers\u00a0at the University of California Davis wanted to quantify this answer.\u00a0Spang and his co-authors investigated how much the state of\u00a0California\u00a0saved on\u00a0electricity\u00a0and\u00a0greenhouse\u00a0emission reductions after the Governor of\u00a0California\u00a0mandated\u00a0a 25%\u00a0reduction and water consumption\u00a0statewide in 2015. On\u00a0April\u00a01, 2015, Governor Brown\u00a0passed Executive Order B-29-15\u00a0in\u00a0response to the\u00a0four-year\u00a0drought … <\/p>\n