Tuesday 20 September 2022: Sources of Fresh Water

Tuesday 20 September 2022: Sources of Fresh Water

1.What water sources are you aware of?​

2. Where do you think your water currently comes from?​

​3. What other water sources do you think Affinity Water can use to source more water for their customers?

Water sources: rivers, from run-off; reservoirs, mostly from run-off, although also partly from groundwater, and from pumped water; groundwater in aquifers. My tap water is pumped from the local aquifer. Whilst locally (south eastern Kent), the aquifer is the best form of natural storage, further west in Kent there is a need for greater reservoir capacity, although this is outside the area allocated to Affinity Water to manage.

The following four options increase water supply. What are your first impressions of each option. Is there anything in particular that concerns you about it? What would you want to know of see proven to feel entirely comfortable with this water source?

Desalination

My first impression regarding desalination is that it is completely unnecessary in the UK, when there is both abundant supply, and so much that could be done to manage and reduce demand, e.g. fixing the mains water leak that has been running in Elham for at least the past ten days, giving households the wherewithal to store grey water for further use. I see the need for desalination in areas of the world where there little precipitation. However, the UK has plenty of rainfall - it is simply managed remarkably badly.

I used to be much more in favour of desalination, until I found out how greedy it is for power, with all the environmental consequences that brings. Now that I recognise there are also further negative environmental consequences of desalination, I am significantly opposed to it in the UK. Part of the problem is that water companies operating in the commercial sector have no responsibility to reduce demand for water. Neither is there any joined-up-ness with building regulations. New houses could be built to much more demanding standards that reduced water demand, and housing estates built only where there is sufficient supply to sustain them. It seems to me that desalination plants are a technological fix for failing to address a wide range of shortcomings in the system of water supply and use in the UK.

Water Transfer

My first impression is that this is such an obvious solution that I assume the reason why new schemes happen so little is due to the artificial borders created by a privatised water supply system, as well as the sums of money involved. I grew up on the edge of North Wales, where there can be few people unaware of the transfer of fresh water from Lake Vyrnwy to Liverpool, and fresh water being transferred from the Lake District to Manchester. I then lived in north eastern England where there can be few people unaware of the transfer of fresh water from Kielder Water into the rivers Tyne, Wear and Tees to supply fresh water to much of north eastern England. These schemes were built before the water supply system was privatised. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Major_water_transfer_schemes_in_England_and_Wales_map.svg I note that your third 'benefit' suggests that water transfer only 'may' give benefit to water flow in rivers - this was one of the very purposes of Kielder Water. It also seems to me that the 'costs' you list of transferring water mostly appear to be trying quite hard to make it sound problematic and undesirable: a) almost any water tastes better than water in London, and so transferring water to London would be a blessing; b) I am mystified why you suggest that the volume of transfer is limited. It is limited only by the diameter of the pipe one is willing to lay between reservoir and river/canal, and the number of pipes. The diameter of the concrete water pipe that runs southwards from Kielder Water is huge; c) Drinking water was contaminated at Camelford - transporting water does not, in itself contaminate water - the issue is how the water is managed; d) Whilst your statement about potentially-invasive species may be theoretically true, in practice there seems little reason why this should be hard to manage when the water is travelling through pipes. I recall plenty of evidence of invasive species of plants (e.g. Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed) along the River Wear that had nothing to do with Kielder, and everything to do with the failings of the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency. The only 'cost' that you list which seems significant to me is the energy required to move the water. I believe that the amount of energy required per unit volume to be a small fraction of the energy required to desalinate sea water. Therefore, much better to do everything to reduce demand first.

Reservoir to Store Water

My first impression is that this option is entirely obvious. Its use (combined with water transfer to lower rainfall areas) is relevant to geographies both that lend themselves to reservoirs, such as hilly topography, and are not underlain by aquifers (the most desirable water storage solution). There is little that concerns me about reservoirs. Even Kielder Water, which is 11 km in length actually occupies an infinitesimal proportion of the land area of the UK. The Kielder dam generates hydroelectricity. If there were rare plant species (a hangover from the end of the last ice age) there in the north Pennines, then moving those plants to similar habits nearby will not have been rocket science. Kielder was chosen because it was sparsely populated, and few people had to be relocated. The amenity value of a large reservoir is considerable - I used to sail on Derwent Reservoir (western County Durham) and I know that there are watersports on Bewl Water on the Kent/East Sussex border. I should like to see more reservoirs built, large and small. The last major public water supply reservoir to be constructed in the UK for water supply purposes was Carsington in 1991, and this was only finished subsequent to privatisation of the water companies because of the dam collapse (q.v.).

Recycled Water

My first impression is that this is a desirable option, but possibly not for producing potable water. It is not that I am especially squeamish, so much as: a) to clean water to a lower quality may require less energy b) to clean water to a lower quality may require fewer chemicals, and therefore less risk of contamination Cleaned non-potable water can be introduced to rivers (to improve flow rates), used for agriculture and supplied to factories. I very much like the idea of recycling water, but am less keen on the ongoing costs (both financial and to the environment - energy and pollution).

Wednesday 14 September 2022: Call Centres

Wednesday 14 September 2022: Call Centres

1. What are your thoughts and expectations of a contact centre?

• Is there anything in particular that annoys or frustrates you about contact centres?
• When it comes to contact centre wait times, would you say you are more, the same or less patient than before the pandemic?

2. Imagine you called an Affinity Water contact centre:

• What would you say is a reasonable time to wait to get through to the right person, and why?
• What kind of service would you want to receive from the call agents? How would you define the ‘ideal experience’?
• Is there anything you feel you should be able to do online rather than having to call Affinity Water?

From my experience, I like it best when I am directed to the most appropriate method for contacting an organisation about my issue or concern:

1. telephone conversation;

2. online chat - which can be cumbersome, but has the merit of being able to save the text for reference;

3. online message application - which I dislike because the character limit is usually far too small, and the has the same disadvantages as e-mail without the advantages;

4. e-mail - which is best because it permits me to write precisely what it is that I wish, but has the disadvantages that I might not be sure that the e-mail was even received or read, and might never be acted on because of being asynchronous (whereas telephone conversations and online chat are in real-time).

Simple reporting, say regarding a water meter reading, is best handled by an application on the website.

If I telephone, then I prefer to speak directly with a call handler, and dislike having to navigate through multiple levels of branching in order to arrive at the correct (or incorrect) departmental call centre. 

I dislike being passed between different call handlers, although I also appreciate that my issue may be most competently dealt with a person who actually knows what they are talking about, rather than a call handler who knows nothing or who might as well be a robot. I am willing to wait for the right person to become available, but it is important for me to know roughly how long I shall be required to wait. I prefer it when the original call handler breaks into my waiting to tell me that the right person is still busy but knows that I am waiting. Ten minutes would be fine, half an hour would not be okay.

I like it best when the call handler takes their time and is obviously making notes about my issue or concern on a computer record. I like it when my issue can be dealt with during the space of one telephone conversation, although I appreciate that many issues require much more than that - such as further information, or decisions being made by other departments. I also like it when the call handler instructs me what I should do if what they have explained ought to happen doesn't actually happen.

I am not bothered about the call handler's name, because I know that I am extremely unlikely to speak with the same call handler twice. I greatly prefer the call handler to call me by my family name (Mr Hughes), and I dislike it when the call handler calls me by my given name (Peter), especially if they are easily young enough to be a great grandchild.

When my call is put on hold, I prefer to listen to some 'classical' music rather than silence, but this must be punctuated with an indication that the call remains live - such as the call handler occasionally breaking into the music (or silence) to say that they are still dealing with my issue. I hate it when, after half an hour of nothing I have to decide whether to end the call and start all over again. 

Have you ever had to contact customer services in any way (call/ email/ Twitter/ Instagram etc.)?

• If you have, please tell us about the experience, and how you think it could have been improved.
• What would you change to make Affinity Water’s overall customer service experience better?

I have been in contact with Affinity Water's customer services by telephone and by e-mail. I do not use social media.

As I recall, my experience was straightforward. I liked the fact that I received an automatic acknowledgement that my e-mail had been received. I was less enthusiastic about the length of time suggested before a response was likely to be forthcoming. Improvement? Speed up.

1. How likely are you to check Affinity Water’s website to find solutions before calling?

• Are there any topics where you prefer talking to a call agent rather than going online? If so, when and why?

2. What about if you reached out to Affinity Water via email/Twitter/Instagram:

• What kind of service would you want to receive? How would you describe the ‘ideal experience’?

3. Are there any key differences between your expectations for the contact centre vs email or other forms of communication? If yes, please tell us why!

It is my practice to scour a website before picking up a telephone. Partly, I need to know if the company concerned already recognises the kind of issue that is concerning me; partly I need to find out if there are already solutions to the issue; partly, if possible, I need to know if the company has a preferred route to engaging with my experience of the problem.

Every time I raise a problem with a call-handler it feels like my issue may be too complex for them to address, and I typically spend time and effort trying to get them on my side sufficiently to listen to my actual needs rather than simply than a clichéd, generalised need.

As I do not use social media, and do not have a smartphone, there is no possibility of me communicating using a smartphone application  I have already explained about my use of e-mail.

I should prefer to use videoconferencing. 

Imagine you contact Affinity Water and tell them about an issue you are having. How long would you expect to wait for the below issues to be resolved?

In each response below, please give us a sense of A) what you think a fair wait is before Affinity start working on the issue, and B) why you think this is a fair wait period…

1. A billing issue or query
2. A problem with low pressure
3. A leak in your property
4. A leak further down your street

My response to each of the examples is the same: Affinity Water should have a responsibility to begin addressing the issue, in whatever way is appropriate, immediately. This does not mean that the issues are of equal urgency: for example, a major leak (wherever) should be stopped as soon as possible. However, I see no reason why delay should be tolerated. More importantly, there should be a target time for resolution of the issue. A billing issue should be resolved within a fortnight. Low water pressure, if proving disruptive, should be resolved within 48 hours. Minor leaks (losing little water, and causing no damage) should be resolved within a fortnight, whereas major leaks should be resolved within 36 hours.

Monday 5 September 2022: Energy Efficiency Labelling

Monday 5 September 2022: Energy Efficiency Labelling

A1. When was the last time you purchased a kitchen appliance? What did you buy? 

I bought a Daewoo air fryer, about three years ago. I bought it to replace a failed Daewoo Airfryer, which I had bought to replace a failed Daewoo Airfryer.

My focus was strongly on trying to reduce my spending on electrical heating, and therefore consuming as little electricity as possible. I understood air fryers to cook food using much less electricity than a standard electric oven. 

When I bought the machine, there was no energy efficiency labelling on the appliance, nor on the packaging, nor in the documentation (I have just been to check). The same situation applies to the Morphy Richards breadmaker, of which I have now consecutively owned seven.

Besides, much of the value of efficiency labelling involves indicating the percentage of consumed electrical power devoted to the purpose of the appliance, rather than being wasted as heat. As heat for cooking was what I required of the air fryer, energy efficiency labelling seemed somewhat superfluous.

Regarding my purchase of the air fryer, the materials/resources (sometimes referred to as 'embodied carbon') used to make each flawed machine considerably outweighed any issues of energy efficiency. I require an appliance to last a long time and receive a lot of use. Whilst I should prefer that it did so energy efficiently, this is secondary to its usefulness and longevity. I accept that a breadmaker making 150-200 loaves a year for three years reaches the end of its life, and the embodied carbon in its manufacture (and transportation) must be factored in to total energy use - a balance may have to be struck between greater longevity (proportionately less embodied carbon) and greater energy efficiency (how little electrical energy it uses to do its job).

When I can, I try to have appliances (washing machine, dishwasher, fridge, microwave oven) repaired. The microwave oven that I had had for twenty years had been repaired several times before it failed irreparably. When I bought a replacement microwave oven from Argos on 12 September 2019, energy efficiency was one of the criteria I tried to find out about, but failed. 

A2. Thinking about when you bought this appliance, what were the top three things you looked for? Why? This may include things like the model, cost, style/design, capacity, how energy efficient it was, good reviews, available in a shop near you etc

My purchasing criteria tend to be many, including (in this order) whether I actually require the appliance and how much I am likely to use it, how reliable it is reputed to be (which may or may not include brand), bad customer reviews on websites, price/affordability, how easily it can be returned if faulty. I have little interest in style. All other things being equal, I would choose a more energy efficient appliance over a less energy efficient appliance. I buy mostly online.

A3. To what extent do you consider energy labels to be important?

I consider energy labels to have a modest level of importance, but mostly in terms of pushing manufacturers to make their appliances more energy efficient regardless of whether the customer takes much notice of them. Public-facing organisations (such as the Consumer Association) promote good practice and expose short-comings, thus indirectly influencing customer decisions.

B1. What type of information would you expect to gain from water efficiency labelling. What should the label tell you/measure? Do you consider that the water efficiency label should include how much water the appliance uses per cycle, and how much water is used to manufacture the item?

As indicated above, I consider that the value of water efficiency labelling would mostly lie in the pressure on manufacturers to reduce the amount of water used by the appliances they manufacture, and during the manufacturing process, rather than directly influencing the buying decisions of customers. I could imagine, however, that environmental pressure groups might attempt to influence regulators to bring about, or tighten, regulations regarding the maximum amount of water an appliance should use.

For my own interest, I find it valuable to know the volume of water used by a cycle of each programme of an appliance.  However, I would not expect to find this information on a sticky label. Neither would I be adequately equipped to interpret the data without appropriate context (requiring more information and a computer). I suppose what I might find useful would be the kind of energy ratings regarding lightbulbs (until they started adding plusses). This would tell me that an appliance has been rated (by someone, but by whom?) as being less or more water efficient.

2. How much impact do you think water efficiency labelling would have on you? Why?

• Thinking about your friends and family, how beneficial do you feel these would be to them? Why? 
• When it comes to trust, what level of trust would you have in these labels? Why? 

The most water-efficient appliance is often the one not bought in the first place. Is it really necessary to have the appliance?

Would I choose to buy an appliance that I knew to be a little less water efficient than another? Yes, if it had other benefits. How about very much less water efficient than another model? No, possibly not ... and yet ... if an appliance's water efficiency rating was based on a singe 'Eco' setting, and the water efficiency of other programme settings was no different from that of any other similar appliance, then I hope that I would not be suckered into buying the greenwash.

I would not trust a manufacturer's own water efficiency rating, no more than I would trust car manufacturers to tell the truth about fuel economy and exhaust emissions.  

3. Which would be more important to you, an energy or water efficiency label? Why?

As indicated above, I consider the value of efficiency labelling appliances lies in the pressure it can exert on manufacturers to improve the efficiency (water or energy) of the appliances they manufacture, and to reduce water/energy use during the manufacturing process, rather than informing customers to help them choose between two similar appliances. Given all the qualifications about which I have written above, I consider both water efficiency and energy efficiency to be equally important.