WRF Webcast. A Snapshot of Water Loss: Examining the Country s Water Audit Submissions

Transcription

1 No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission. WRF Webcast A Snapshot of Water Loss: Examining the Country s Water Audit Submissions November 5, 2015

2 Intro, 5 mi Webcast Agenda, 90 min Maureen Hodgins, WRF Analysis of US Water Audits, 45 min Kate Gasner, WSO Lucy Andrews, WSO Water Loss Control Adoption & Training in TN, 20 min Chris Leauber, Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County Update from AWWA WLCC, 5 min Chris Leauber, Chair Q&A, 15 min

3 Can download the slides now

4 Audience Questions Type in your questions here & hit Send Questions on the webcast content will be answered in the last 15 minutes

5 Information available on b report now, search for 4372 Webcast slides and recording - within 24 hours after the webcast

6 Development of Water Loss Control Best Practices 1990s UK National Leakage Initiative IWA Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services (+AWWA input) 2000 IWA Water Loss Group 27 countries N. America path 2015 WRF 2811 & 2928 AWWA M36 3 rd ed AWWA Free Water Audit Utility water audits 2000s Analyze water audits AWWA WADI WRF 4372b Validation guidance - WRF 4639

7 Today s Speakers Kate Gasner Director of Water and Energy Efficiency Water Systems Optimization Lucy Andrews Project Manager Water Systems Optimization Chris Leauber Executive Director Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, TN Chair, AWWA Water Loss Control Committee

8 WSO AGENDA 4372A: Component Analysis of Real Losses 4372B: Water Audits Water Losses and Data Validity Research Goals Audit Software Data Validation Regional Audit Programs Data Filtering/Methodology Water Loss Statistics Findings Water Loss Control Opportunity!

9 Component Analysis of Real Losses Water Research Foundation 4372A: Real Loss Component Analysis A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control search for water losses

10 Component Analysis of Real Losses 1 AUDIT SOFTWARE 2 COMPONENT ANALYSIS MODEL WATER AUDIT TOTAL REAL LOSSES REPORTED UNREPORTED BACKGROUND

11 Research Goals Water Research Foundation 4372B: Water Audits in the United States A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity 1. What are the reporting frameworks of states that track water loss? 2. Is data submitted in water audits reasonable? 3. Has audit data quality changed with repeated auditing? 4. Have reported water loss volumes and relevant metrics changed with repeated auditing? 5. What trends in water loss and cost figures can be observed in the composite data set? 6. How is the quality of audit data affected by reporting requirements and validation? DATA VALIDITY WATER LOSS METRICS

12 Water Audits AWWA Free Water Audit Software collects water balance volumes, cost data, and system data grades data validity determines total volumes of water losses Apparent Losses Real Losses Non-Revenue Water calculates performance indicators determine the magnitude of water loss track/compare performance customize water loss control activity

13 Performance Indicators Real Losses / service conn / day Apparent Losses / service conn / day Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) Unavoidable Annual Real Losses actual Real Losses ILI = technical minimum Real Losses Current Annual Real Losses percent values not preferred as performance indicator

14 Data Validation accurate data inputs accurate results LEVELS OF DATA VALIDATION SELF-REPORTED LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 no in-depth review auditor assigns data validity grades third-party surface-level desktop review no new data only existing sources data validity grades are main focus third-party deeper desktop review investigation of all available data sources validation of SIV and consumption is main focus third-party desktop review and field investigation production and customer meter accuracy testing pressure data collection field confirmation of water balance is main focus

15 REGIONAL AUDIT PROGRAMS ENTITY ABBREVIATION PROGRAM START LEVEL OF VALIDATION California Urban Water Conservation Council CA 2010 self-reported Delaware River Basin Commission DRBC 2012 self-reported Georgia Department of Natural Resources GA 2012 level 1 Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury TN 2013 self-reported Texas Water Development Board TX 2005 self-reported PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS amount of training, ongoing education, and technical support extent of validation driving forces and purpose of auditing (allocation of funds, quantification of losses, scarcity, etc.)

16 Key Points 1 2 Importance Value of of Statewide Transparent Educational Data Validity & Validation Scores Efforts 3 Accuracy Paves the Way for Action!

17 Filtering Process are self-reported audits realistic? all audit submissions filtering process audits included for further analysis, statistics, totals

18 financial volumetric Filtering Process are self-reported audits realistic? METRIC Infrastructure Leakage Index CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION < 1.0 > 20.0 Real Losses < 0 (negative real losses) cost of Non-Revenue Water incomplete audit Customer Retail Cost Variable Production Cost > 100% of system operating costs key fields not filled out more than 2 orders of magnitude off of the data set s median more than 2 orders of magnitude off of the data set s median median values preferred over average values cost figure calculations can vary amongst utilities but costs still represent financial boundaries/economic potential

19 volumetric financial Performance Indicators composite data set = most recent realistic audits from each region PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MEDIAN AVERAGE UNIT customer retail unit cost $4.67 $8.33 $ / 1,000 gal variable production cost $ $2, $ / million gal NRW as % of operating cost 7.8% 10.2% % of operating cost Apparent Losses gal / serv conn / day Real Losses (serv conns) gal / serv conn / day Real Losses (mains) ,132.4 gal / mile of main / day Real Losses (pressure) gal / serv conn / day / PSI ILI (dimensionless) data validity score points out of 100 data set is skewed averages are far above medians values indicate potential magnitudes not absolute measurements

20 Findings Water Loss Performance higher Variable Production Cost ~ lower Real Losses

21 Findings Water Loss Performance more water imported ~ lower Real Losses

22 Findings Water Loss Performance higher operating pressure ~ higher Real Losses

23 Findings Data Validity many audits are unrealistic more training (ie GA, TN) produces fewer unrealistic audits even level 1 validation doesn t fully eliminate unrealistic audits CA DRBC GA TN TX total audits ,646 # of unrealistic audits ,065 % of unrealistic audits 33% 25% 16% 19% 40%

24 Findings Data Validity utilities with unrealistic audits tended to self-grade their data validity the highest unrealistic 77.1 vs. realistic 73.1 GA level 1 validation produced the lowest data validity grades

25 Key Points 1 2 Importance Value of of Statewide Transparent Educational Data Validity & Validation Scores Efforts 3 Accuracy Paves the Way for Action!

26 Opportunity Water loss control offers a significant opportunity for the recovery of financial losses and water losses. 364,500 MG of annual Real Losses valued at $425,821,000

27 Water Loss Control Adoption & Training in Tennessee Chris Leauber Executive Director Water and Wastewater Authority of Wilson County, TN

28 The Law 2007 Tennessee legislation enacted in reference to water loss, Public Chapter No. 243 Because utility increased rates 25% Water system billing < 50% of water supplied 2013 Fully transited to reporting with IWA/AWWA Water Audit Methodology

29 Utility Management Review Board Created in the office of comptroller of the treasury for the purpose of advising utility district boards of commissioners in the area of utility management Jurisdiction over public water systems operated by utility districts 9 members - 7 Governor appointed, comptroller of the treasury designee, commissioner of environment & conservation designee

30 Water & Wastewater Financing Board Established in the office of the comptroller of the treasury to determine and ensure the financial integrity of certain water systems and wastewater facilities Jurisdiction over self-supporting water systems (municipalities) & treatment authorities 9 members - 7 Governor appointed, comptroller of the treasury designee, commissioner of environment & conservation designee

31 *TN Unaccounted for Water (UFW) % 60 Comparing ILI to TN UFW% Data of 77 TN Systems **Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) * Data source from Unaccounted Water Report, TCA Filing Date: February 1, 2010 ** ILI calculations based on number of service connections & length of mains provided by others. AWWA Water Audit default values of 1.25% for unbilled unmetered & 0.25% for unauthorized consumption. 2% used for customer metering inaccuracies & 60 psi for average operating pressure.

32

33 Excessive Water Loss October, 2010 UMRB & WWFB set an excessive water loss percentage at 35% UFW (the comptroller s method) Must recalculate with AWWA method Adopted AWWA method for financial reports received after 1/1/2013 Motion approved to seek to change verbiage in state law to reflect that the water loss be determined in a manner described by Board

34 Legislation Changed TCA May, 2011 Tennessee SB 742 & HB 876 Passed Deletes term percentage Allows Boards instead of comptroller of the treasury to determine manner systems report water loss Will allow Boards to adopt AWWA water audit method April, 2013 Tennessee SB 764 & HB 60 Passed Deletes term unaccounted for and average unaccounted for water Uses term water loss instead

35 June 6, 2012, UMRB & WWFB Adopted the following for Audited Financial Statements Received on or after 1/1/2013 I. AWWA Free Water Audit Software be submitted in Excel, & Reporting Worksheet be included in Annual Audited Financial Statements II. Failure to include the required schedule constitutes excessive water loss and referral to Board III. Utilities will be referred to Board for submitting an incomplete AWWA Water Audit

36 TN Regulatory AWWA Water Audit Triggers for Referral to Board Table 2.3 Tennessee reporting thresholds requiring improvement plan submission DATE EFFECTIVE DATA VALIDITY SCORE NRW AS % OF OPERATING COST 1/1/ or lower 30% or greater 1/1/ or lower 25% or greater 1/1/ or lower 20% or greater 1/1/ or lower 20% or greater Sturm, R., K. Gasner, and L. Andrews Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity. Denver, Colo: Water Research Foundation. Reprinted with permission.

37 One Day Training Workshops Hands-on AWWA Water Audit Software Tennessee Association of Utility District 15 workshops statewide 282 trained Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation, Fleming Training Center 5 workshops statewide 69 trained

38 Two Day Training Workshops Hands-on AWWA Water Audit Software WRF Component Analysis (2014 & 2015) Implementation programs to reduce losses 2 nd day hands-on in the field work Tennessee Association of Utility District 4 workshops trained

39 TAUD 2-DAY WATER LOSS

40 Training Summary 26 Workshops 422 trained TAUD Circuit Riders technical assistance Over 700 AWWA Water Audits since 2011 Additional outreach Annual training of regulatory boards Conference presentations Utility to utility cross training Funding agency communications

41 Results Enhanced Audit Quality Table 4.8 Count of Tennessee (COT) audits by year YEAR ALL YEARS INCLUDED AUDITS EXCLUDED AUDITS % EXCLUDED 22% 23% 20% 14% 19% TOTAL AUDITS Sturm, R., K. Gasner, and L. Andrews Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Water Losses and Data Validity. Denver, Colo: Water Research Foundation. Reprinted with permission.

42 Program Review Must have organization to do outreach Training, training & more training Utility presented case studies Reliable data challenges Data validation Financial assistance Data validation Implementation to reduce losses Implementation of available tools WRF Real Loss Component Analysis Model

43 Update on AWWA Water Loss Control Committee Chris Leauber Chair, AWWA WLCC

44 AWWA Water Loss Control Committee 76 Members Seven Subcommittees M-36 Publication Apparent Losses Real Losses Outreach & Education Strategic Business Planning for Water Loss Control Regulatory Practices for Water Audits Water Audit Software

45 WLCC - The Way Forward M36 Water Audits & Loss Control Programs Fourth Edition, February 2016 Continued Outreach & Education Water Audit Data Validity Production Meter Accuracy District Metered Areas/Night Flow Analysis Background Leakage Pressure Management Water-Energy Nexus Cost-effective Water Loss Control Planning

46 Dec 8-9, 2015 Conference & Exposition This event is not-to-be missed! Technical sessions on water auditing, loss control program implementation, addressing Non-Revenue Water through billing, theft, metering, leakage, pressure, and asset management, and regulatory policy development across North America Case studies for growing implementation of established IWA/AWWA best practices and innovations for Water Loss Management Keynote speakers from U.S. EPA and the California-Nevada Section of AWWA

47 Q&A

48 Thank You! Comments or questions, please contact: For more information visit:

49 WRF Resources - Water Loss Control Fanner, Sturm, et al Evaluating Water Loss and Planning Loss Reduction Strategies, Report Fanner, Sturm, et al Leakage Management Technologies, Report Barfuss et al Accuracy of In-Service Water Meters at Low and High Flow Rates, Report Hughes et al Continuous System Leak Monitoring-From Start To Repair, Report Hughes et al Pipe Location and Leakage Management for Small Water Systems, Report Cunningham et al Effects of Weather on Leakage and Bursts, Report LeChevallier et al Pressure Management: Industry Practices and Monitoring Procedures, Report Sturm et al Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control, Report 4372a. Sturm, Gasner and Andrews, Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Data Validity and Results, Report 4372b. Ongoing - Project 4639, Establishing Water Utility Guidance And Methodology For Water Audit Validation.

50 Compilations of Water Audits Chastain-Howley et al Water loss: The North American Dataset. Journal AWWA, 105 (6): Sturm et al Real Loss Component Analysis: A Tool for Economic Water Loss Control, Report 4372a. Denver, CO: WRF. Jernigan Trending & Analysis of Validated Water Loss Audits in Georgia. Water Smart Innovations, October Sayers, D.A., Najjar, K.F., Barr, J.K Analysis of Calendar Year 2012 Water Audit Data from Public Water Supply Systems in the Delaware River Basin. Delaware River Basin Commission. West Trenton, NJ. February TODAY S TALK: Sturm, Gasner and Andrews, Water Audits in the United States: A Review of Data Validity and Results, Report 4372b. Denver, CO: WRF.

51 Water Loss Control Manuals and References American Water Works Association Manual M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. 3rd ed. AWWA. Denver, CO. 4 th edition to be published Feb 2016 AWWA Water Loss Control Resource Community website Thornton, Sturm et al Water Loss Control, 2 nd ed. McGraw-Hill Professional.