Canadian Utilities Learn to Fly through Benchmarking of Water Loss Management

Transcription

1 Leakage Conference Proceedings Page 1 Canadian Utilities Learn to Fly through Benchmarking of Water Loss Management C A McCormack christine.mccormack@earthtech.ca Keywords: Benchmarking, Performance Improvement Abstract This paper outlines the progress that thirty Canadian water utilities participating in the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative have made on water loss management over the past four years. Performance measure results will be shared, along with findings of the process benchmarking task force and key improvement initiatives derived from the action plan framework. The benchmarking partnership is becoming a highly experienced association of public utilities that are proficient at metric benchmarking. Internationally, the project is considered one of the leading public sector benchmarking projects of its kind in the world today. Introduction Would you fly an airplane without an instrument panel? Of course not. So why would a water utility attempt to manage, direct and improve highly technical and at times, complicated processes without data that is timely, meaningful, comparable and accurate? The old adage You can t improve what you don t measure holds true for measuring water loss performance. The evolution of water loss measurement within the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative (NWWBI) has closely simulated the experience of learning to fly for Canadian water utilities. Early Days of the National Benchmarking Initiative The National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative began with a pilot process in 1997 with four participant wastewater utilities and investment by Earth Tech and the National Research Council. The pilot participants agreed that operating performance measures would be useful for managers to compare their utility s performance to that of their peers and to provide a focus for management efforts. One of the main project objectives was to develop a benchmarking approach that would not rely on selfadministered questionnaires, but would provide the confidence in the data to facilitate the identification of gaps in performance. This was only possible through an apples-toapples comparison and on-site data collection that would ultimately contribute to the formulation of improvement actions where needed. After several years of developing the wastewater benchmarking methodology, the project expanded to water utilities in The Water Utility Management Model The first task of the water benchmarking module was to develop a Utility Management Model that would provide the framework for performance measurement, and which would eventually become critical to the foundation of the project. The first layer of the management model consisted of a series of common high-level utility goals that all

2 Leakage Conference Proceedings Page 2 participants agreed upon. The participants quickly realised that there are fundamental goal differences between the wastewater and water utilities. The water utility management model includes specific goals such as Protect Public Health and Safety (a goal that the wastewater utilities met many decades ago). Under each goal a set of performance measures were formulated to measure a utility s success in attaining the goal. For inclusion in the management model, each performance measure had to comply with criteria such as practicality and measurability, accuracy and relevance to the utility s actions. The seven goals of the water utility management model are shown in Figure 1 below. Minimum Sustainable Cost Protect Public Health & Safety Safe and Productive Workplace Sufficient Quantity Satisfied & Informed Customers Reliable & Sustainable Protect the Environment Figure 1 - Water Utility Management Goals Performance Measurement When the water utility management model was being created in 2001, the participating Canadian water utilities considered unaccounted for water a minor issue that related primarily to leak detection. We found that many of the utilities were more comfortable referring to unaccounted for water as a % of supply. In addition, it was found that a wide range of terms were used in the industry to define water lost from a distribution system, whether it be unaccounted-for water, non-revenue water, water loss or leakage. Aware of the limitations of % of supply as a performance measure, the measure unaccounted for water in m³/km/day was selected for collection of 2000 data. At that time, this measure was considered relevant only to the Reliable and Sustainable goal. Many utilities were unable to calculate their Unaccounted for Water volume and replied We don t have customer meters so we don t know or We don t know but estimate it to be 20% of supply. Some even stated that they had no water loss and that 100% of the water distributed from the plants was delivered to their customers. The data provided for 2000 is shown in a blinded format in Figure 2. The utilities that were unable to provide the data are shown with negative values on the graph.

3 Leakage Conference Proceedings Page 3 50 Cubic meters of unaccounted for water / km / day TRANS Negative values - no data available X-axis - in order of increasing length TRANS-2 TRANS-3 TRANS-4 TRANS-5 B F G P K H O L D C R M T A U N E J S Q Figure 2: Unaccounted for water in m³ / km / day in 2000 for Distribution & Transmission Systems This lack of data and confusion regarding water loss terminology prompted the investigation of Canadian water loss management through a process benchmarking task force which began in early The NWWBI has established a number of process benchmarking task forces to address areas of concern to utility managers. Beyond a mere comparison of benchmarking results, experience from the project has taught that the real value of benchmarking lies in identifying areas of performance gaps and to work as a team to share experiences and to formulate improvement strategies focused on specific processes. Conference calls were convened and a dedicated session at the annual 2003 benchmarking workshop was attended by 18 water utilities. The annual workshop provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking participants to leverage from each other s progress, exchange ideas, and implement proven best management practices. During these discussions, international best practices such as the International Standard Water Audit and the Canadian InfraGuide were identified and shared with the group. The group also shared information on their metering practices, sources of leakage and monitoring of un-metered consumption such as flushing volumes. The discussions provided insight into how each utility was dealing with water loss and the advantages or disadvantages they found with each of their strategies. Moving forward, the group agreed to replace the term unaccounted-for water with non-revenue water, defined as the amount of water left over after subtracting the billed water exports, billed metered and billed un-metered consumption from the system input (IWA Standard Water Audit (Thornton, 2002)). The term unaccounted-for water becomes redundant when a utility is able to fully explain where all system input is allocated, therefore no amount of water can really be unaccounted-for. The water loss performance measure was revised to non-revenue water measured in m³/km/day for transmission only systems and L/connection/day for integrated and distribution only systems (Transmission only systems are relatively uncommon. They occur when a regional utility sources and treats the water then delivers it through transmission pipes to

4 Leakage Conference Proceedings Page 4 member municipalities whom purchase it in bulk and manage their own distribution only systems. The participants began to see the wider picture of water loss management and understood that it was no longer limited to leak detection as leak detection is only one of the many water loss management strategies that could be adopted. The water loss management strategies discussed during the sessions are summarised in Figure 3. Public Relations Management The International Standard Water Audit District Metered Areas Water Metering, Testing and Replacement Water Efficiency / Conservation Leak Detection Operation & Maintenance Practices Pressure Management Distribution System Modeling Infrastructure Renewal SCADA Bylaw Enforcement & Design Standards Pricing Figure 3: Water Loss Management Strategies Today, 30 of Canada s most progressive municipal and regional water utilities use a common terminology of non-revenue water (NRW). Performance measure graphs are updated on an annual basis and show non-revenue water measured in m³/km/day for transmission only systems and L/connection/day for integrated and distribution only systems. For 2003, 75% of the integrated and distribution only systems provided data on these measures. The 2003 graph for integrated and distribution systems is shown in Figure 4 below. With time, the group intends to progress to more advanced NRW performance measures such as the Infrastructure Leakage Index.

5 Leakage Conference Proceedings Page 5 NRW (L/connection/day) A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y % Metered 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% Negative Values - no data available X-axis - in order of increasing 2003 NRW % of System Metered Figure 4 - Non-Revenue Water (L / connection / day) for Water Integrated and Distribution Systems Figure 4 shows that 6 of the 24 water utilities did not have universal metering in 2003, and half of these were unable to measure their non-revenue water. Of the 18 utilities with universal metering, all but one utility was able to provide their 2003 water loss data. The 2003 data ranged from 100 to 650 L/connection/day, representing significant room for improvement for some of the water utilities. For example, if the utility with the highest water loss volume was able to reduce their annual water loss by 50%, they could save over $6,000,000 on an annual basis (based on a marginal cost of water of $0.20/m³). Beyond cost savings, Canadian utilities now recognise that water loss reduction also presents opportunities for the deferral of capital expenditure, an increase in system capacity and demonstration to customers that the water utility is a responsible custodian of water resources and that it can walk the talk when it comes to water conservation. Through the benchmarking initiative, annual data is also collected on general operations and maintenance activities such as water main breaks, main break response time and length of main replaced. Participants also share information on their annual leak detection programs including costs, methods used and length tested. Performance Improvement It began with collecting and comparing numbers on an annual basis. At the 2004 Benchmarking Workshop in Vancouver, the participants agreed that the emphasis must shift to utility performance improvement. They asked that the onus be put back on them to prove to the group that they are working on performance improvement. Many of the participants find that they are too busy to pursue performance improvement initiatives. It is too easy to take the path of least resistance as change is difficult and requires habits to be broken. As the project moves forward, participants have adopted a Mission: Performance Improvement slogan to reflect their goal to use the Benchmarking data more proactively for performance improvement. For the March 2005 National Benchmarking Summary Workshop in Montreal, participants were asked to bring the

6 Leakage Conference Proceedings Page 6 results of one or more performance improvement initiatives for presentation or discussion. The focus of the workshop breakout sessions was for utilities to derive action plans to implement improvement initiatives in their organizations. Several participant utilities brought their water loss reduction strategies to share with the group in Montreal. Abbotsford presented on their new metering practice of a combined meter for domestic and fire supply to non-residential customers. This new practice will give the utility more control over non-authorized use of water from the fire line such as wash down, irrigation and process water. Ongoing operations and maintenance costs for the meter and connection pipe are also reduced with this new practice. City of Calgary presented on their demand side management strategy, of which water loss reduction is a key component. The City has made a strategic choice to meet future water needs by reducing per capita water demand through a range of initiatives (metering, leak reduction, periodic watering restrictions, etc). The overall goal is to service a future population of 1.5 million in 2032 with no increase in total water consumed, requiring an average per capita reduction of more than 30%. The City is moving towards having universal metering and in the meantime, calculates their non-revenue water by using subdivision studies to estimate the consumption of flat rate users. Water main replacement is one of the strategies that the City is using to reduce non-revenue water and has already replaced 500km of its 4,400km of water mains to reduce main breaks. Conclusion Today, the Canadian water utilities participating in the National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative understand the importance of rigorous utility benchmarking. They have progressed from measuring Cubic meter of unaccounted for water / km / day and considering that leak detection was the key solution to water loss, to measuring nonrevenue water volume in specific units for transmission and distribution systems and to the understanding that leak detection is just one of many water loss management strategies. Now that they have numbers for water loss, they can learn to fly their utilities to improve water loss management through data monitoring and sharing of best management practices. References Thornton, J. (2002) Water Loss Control Manual. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.