reflections on performance - vewin
TRANSCRIPT
Association of Dutch water companies
Reflections on Performance
Benchmarking in the Dutch drinking water industry
August 2013
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012
Contents
Foreword 5
Summary 6
Introduction 12
Water quality 17
Service 26
Environment 34
Finance & Efficiency 40
Appendices 60
Notes 72
Colophon 76
3
Unless specified otherwise, it applies to all the information and diagrams in this report that the in-
dividual water companies, where Accenture carried out the required inspections (over several
years, between the companies) and analyses, are the source of this information.
4
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE • PARTICIPANTS BENCHMARK 2012
Note: the logo colours of the participants were the basis for the colours used in this benchmark.
Foreword
Commitment and continuity ensure quality
The publication 'Reflections on Performance 2012' provides the main results of the sixth benchmark
2012. This mandatory benchmark is a continuation of the benchmark the drinking water industry has
been carrying out voluntarily since 1997.
The study was conducted independently by Accenture the Netherlands with contributions from the
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), TNS NIPO, KWR Watercycle Research
Institute and Ipsos. It was commissioned by Vewin in accordance with a protocol established by the
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (based on the Dutch Drinking Water Act 2010).
For 2012, the customers rate the water quality 8.4 out of 10 (in 2009: 8.3), while the service provision is
rated 7.7 (7.6). The average costs per connection have decreased by € 23 since 1997. After adjusting
for inflation, the real costs per connection have decreased by 35.4% compared with 1997.
The study shows that Dutch drinking water easily meets all legal requirements. This high quality is
achieved because the sector systematically invests in (new) techniques that remove the most difficult
substances from the water. As a result of this additional treatment, however, energy consumption has
increased by 15% since 1997, which underlines the need to prevent these substances from entering
the drinking water sources.
This clear customer satisfaction is an encouragement for water companies to continue on the road
taken with an even greater commitment and with options for new items, such as sustainability and
asset management. For the rest, I refer you to the contents of this report.
Prof. Dr. C.P. Veerman Drs. Th.J.J. Schmitz
President Director
Fo
rew
ord
5
Benchmark 2012: First Benchmark under the Drinking Water Act
Reflections on Performance 2012 is the performance comparison (benchmark) in the Dutch drinking water
industry for the calendar year 2012. It is the first edition of the mandatory Benchmark under the Drinking
Water Act. The Benchmark aims to increase efficiency, quality and transparency in the industry. The
Benchmark was previously carried out by the water companies in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009 on a
voluntary basis, allowing the performance of water companies to be compared over a longer period of
time. The benchmark study is based on four themes representing the key result areas of the water
companies: Water Quality, Service, Environment, and Finance & Efficiency.
The water companies actively use the Benchmark as a tool to identify aspects allowing them to improve
their business processes further. This way, the Benchmark results provide input for the preparation of the
improvement plans of the water companies.
Water quality: Drinking water quality further improved
The water companies are compared on three aspects within the theme of water quality: the Water Quality
Index (WQI), non-compliance with standards and a rating provided by the customer.
The WQI represents the average value of parameters for produced drinking water relative to their standard.
A score of ‘0’ is the highest possible score and is considered optimum drinking water. A score of ‘1’ means
that the average values just comply with the legal standards. Averaged over four parameter groups, the
2012 WQI improved by 23.6%, from 0.018 in 2009 to 0.014 in 2012 (Figure 1). The numbers of recorded
cases of non-compliance with these standards have declined since 2009.
In addition, customer satisfaction with the quality of drinking water increased even further. On average,
customers rate the water companies 8.4 out of 10 for the drinking water quality, compared with 7.7 in
2003, 8.0 in 2006 and 8.3 in 2009.
Service: On average customers rate water companies 7.7 out of 10
In terms of service, the water companies are compared on five aspects: customer-provided ratings,
accessibility by telephone, duration of disruptions in supply, pressure in the distribution network and
(the opening of) nature conservation areas.
The level of customer satisfaction in relation to service remains high. During a random test carried out by
TNS NIPO, the water companies scored an average of 7.7 out of 10 for service, which is slightly higher
than the 7.6 scored in the four previous Benchmarks. In 1997 the average rating was also 7.7 out of 10.
Satisfaction with the service is high in comparison with those for other sectors included in the same
random test by TNS NIPO: the local energy company (7.4), a supermarket chain (7.1), the municipality
where the respondent lives (6.8), postal company (6.3) and a public transport company (5.8) (Figure 3).
6
Summary
7
Su
mm
ary
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.000 0.007 0.028 0.037
0.000 0.005 0.025 0.025
Water Quality Index for each parameter group 2009 2012
Water that meets legal standards
Optimum water
Health parameters(Acute)
Health parameters(Non-Acute)
Operationalparameters
Customer-orientedparameters
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Average score drinking water quality
2003 2006 2009 2012
7.78.0
8.3 8.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Average score service
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009
7.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.77.4
7.1 6.8
6.35.8
2012
Ener
gy c
ompa
ny
Supe
rmar
ket c
hain
Mun
icip
ality
Pos
tal c
ompa
ny
Publ
ic tr
ansp
ort c
ompa
ny
Figure 3
Customers remain
satisfied with water
companies’ service,
rating it 7.7 out of 10
Figure 2
Customers are becoming
increasingly satisfied with
the quality of drinking water.
The average rating has
increased by 0.7 points
to 8.4 out of 10 since 2003
Figure 1
The average WQI for the
4 parameter groups for
2012 is 0.01 (highest
possible score = 0.000;
legal standard = 1.000)
Marketing research bureau Ipsos determined the telephone accessibility of water companies by measuring
the percentage of telephone calls answered within 20 seconds at each company. It has been established
that this percentage averaged 70% in 2012, 2% higher than in 2009 and 32% higher than in 2006.
Accessibility is higher than in other sectors surveyed by Ipsos: public sector (67%), services (59%), health
care (56%) and producers/suppliers (48%).
For Reflections on Performance 2012, the KWR Watercycle Research Institute has researched the duration
of interruptions in drinking water supplies for the third time. This research showed that, in 2012,
customers had on average experienced unscheduled supply disruptions of 5:57 minutes per year,
compared with 7:35 minutes in 2009. This is low compared with the electricity supply (27 minutes per
year), but higher than for gas (1:04 minutes per year). A benchmark study by the European Benchmarking
Cooperation also shows that Dutch water companies experience 50% fewer unscheduled water supply
disruptions than those within in the EBC group. In 2012, the number of minutes the water supply was
interrupted for scheduled maintenance averaged 9:30, compared with 9:24 minutes in 2009. This slight
increase can be explained partly by increased replacement investments due to the increasing age of the
network.
Water companies should supply the drinking water to the customer with a sufficiently high pressure.
Under the Drinking Water Act, the drinking water supply must comply with a pressure that guarantees the
supply of sufficient water. This is important from both a public health point of view and to prevent external
inflow into the mains system by applying back pressure. During the supply, the pressure must be at least
150 kilopascal (kPa) at all times. With an average of 318 kPa, the average pressure at the point of delivery
of all water companies lies well above this.
Finally, nature management and the opening of nature conservation areas have been researched within
the service theme. Water companies are the third-largest nature managers after Staatsbosbeheer and
Natuurmonumenten. They manage a total area of 20,000 hectares. 16,400 hectares of which, meaning over
80%, is open to the public.
Environment:Increase in sustainability & energy consumption
Within the environmental theme, the performance of water companies is compared in terms of electricity
consumption, residues, combating dehydration, distribution losses and sustainable purchasing.
Despite targeted measures such as decreasing pressure in the network and installing speed-controlled
pumps and similar, energy consumption per m3 of drinking water has increased by 15% since 1997. This
increase is due partly to the increased softening process and the addition of additional water treatment
steps to remove undesired substances from drinking water sources. In the same period the proportion of
sustainable energy used went up from 4% to 100% (Figure 4).
In 2012, 98.2% of the residues released during the production of drinking water were recycled by the water
companies for use in building materials and as a raw material for the glass industry, among other
8
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • SUMMARY
applications. For the vast majority, this was organised and implemented via the Residues Union
(Restoffenunie). The Residues Union was founded by the water companies in 1995 to find new uses for
residues from the production of drinking water. All the water companies in the Netherlands are
shareholders in the Residues Union.
The industry addresses dehydration proactively. The water companies participate in covenants to combat
dehydration in TOP areas (the most dehydrated areas)1). Anti dehydration measures are also being taken in
the context of Natura 2000. These measures vary from closing and relocating extraction sites and reducing
water extraction to researching the extraction of brackish water instead of fresh groundwater.
As an indicator of the distribution loss, the quantity 'Non Revenue Water' (NRW) has been compared in the
Benchmark. Besides real losses due to leaks and flushing of the water mains, the NRW comprises unbilled
consumption (e.g. for fire extinguishing systems) and measuring differences. The average NRW is 5% of
the drinking water introduced into the mains system. This amounts to an average of 1.3 m3 per km of
pipeline per day. This is between 3 and 4 times lower than the most common value of companies
participating in the international water benchmark of the European Benchmarking Cooperation.
All water companies have already formulated a policy on sustainable purchasing. The aim of the sector is
to achieve 100% sustainable purchasing by 2015.
Finance & Efficiency: Increase in costs is below inflation
For the Finance & Efficiency theme, the costs for the customers are compared. In addition, capital
formation, dividend payments and expenditure on research and development are also examined.
Su
mm
ary
9
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
0.020.45
0.020.45
0.12
0.48
0.16
0.49
0.40
0.50 0.52
0.43 0.43
0.360.33
0.10
0.52
Energy consumption (kWh/m³ produced) Conventional energy Sustainable energy
Figure 4
In the sector, energy
consumption for water
production and distribution
has increased by 15%
since 1997 due to additional
treatment. In the same
period the proportion of
sustainable energy used
went up from 4% to 100%.
0.00
0.40
0.20
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
0.12
0.13 0.14 0.15 0.160.03
1.24
1.04
1.15 1.17 1.19 1.17
Development of the nominal costs in € per m³ supplied Average total costs (excl. taxes) Taxes Figure 6
Since 1997, costs per m3
have risen nominally by
10.0%
Between 1997 and 2012, the nominal costs per connection have decreased from an average of € 195 to
€ 172 (-11.8%). In this period, the annual amount of drinking water supplied per connection dropped from
169 m3 to 135 m3. This is due to water-saving measures, more energy-efficient appliances (e.g. washing
machines), demographic factors such as smaller households and increased use of process water (instead
of drinking water) in the business market. Therefore, the cost trend per m3 differs from the trend per
connection: an increase from € 1.16/ m3 in 1997 to € 1.27/ m3 in 2012.
In 2012, the abolition of the groundwater tax provided for a drop in both the cost per connection and the
cost per m3. Figure 5 shows the development of the nominal costs per connection and Figure 6 the
development of the nominal costs per m3.
10
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • SUMMARY
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
2020 22 23
22 4
168175
184 182 177169
Development of the nominal costs in € per connection Average total costs (excl. taxes) Taxes
Figure 5
Since 1997, costs per
connection have fallen
nominally by 11.8%
11
Average total costs (excl. taxes) Taxes
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
28 26
2526
244
168
239 235
213198
179
Development of the real costs in € per connection
0.00
0.40
0.20
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
0.160.16
0.16 0.170.16 0.03
1. 24
1.411.47
1.36 1.331.24
Average total costs (excl. taxes) TaxesDevelopment of the real costs in € per m³ supplied Figure 8
Since 1997, real costs
per m3 have fallen
by 19.4%
(prices 2012)
Figure 7
The real costs per
connection have fallen
by 35.4% since 1997
(prices 2012)
Su
mm
ary
Applying an adjustment for inflation results in the real costs. From the perspective of the customer, the
development of the real costs reflects the efficiency increase in the sector. Since 1997, the real costs have
decreased by an average of 35.4% per connection (Figure 7) and by 19.4% per supplied m3 (Figure 8).
An average of 32% of the capital of the water companies comprises equity. All companies remain well
below the statutory maximum, which has been set at 70%.
Six of the ten water companies do not pay any dividends. For the sector as a whole, the dividend
distribution amounts to 38% of the profit (3% of the revenue).
In 2012, the water companies spent a total of 17.7 million euros on research and development. This means
€ 2.24 per connection and 1.2% of the revenue.
Introduction
12
Focus on transparency and efficiency
The drinking water industry benchmarking study was previously carried out in a similar manner and on a
voluntary basis in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009. With effect from 2012, the benchmarking study is an
instrument which is required by law and is carried out on the basis of the Drinking Water Act
(Drinkwaterwet).
Reflections on Performance 2012 provides insight into the performance of the drinking water companies in
2012 and compares them with the previous years.
The Benchmark study has the following objectives:
• Transparency of performanceThe Benchmark focuses on providing openness to all the interested parties, including supervisory
directors and shareholders. It is an instrument whereby the drinking water companies account for
the way in which they implement their public duties. Transparency and efficiency are improved by
publication of the results and the direction exercised by the board of supervisory directors and
general meeting of shareholders.
• Improvement of business processesThe Benchmark provides the industry with insight into how individual water companies can further
improve their processes. Pursuant to the Drinking Water Act, the water companies draw up an
improvement plan and submit it to the Minister of Infrastructure and the Environment (I&E), who is
responsible for drinking water supplies in the Netherlands.
The requirements which have to be met by the Benchmark and the report have been elaborated in Chapter
6 of the Drinking Water Decree. The Protocol for the comparison of the performances of drinking water
companies (Protocol Prestatievergelijking Drinkwaterbedrijven 2012, hereinafter referred to as the
‘Benchmark Protocol’) stipulates the data to be provided by the drinking water companies and the detailed
manner in which the performances are to be compared. The Protocol was laid down by the Minister of
Infrastructure and the Environment in February 2012.
The Protocol also indicates the series of activities to be followed in order to be able to present a clear
comparison of performances. Prior to every new statutory Benchmark (that is, every 3 years), the Protocol
is evaluated to see whether it requires adjustment.
The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) is responsible for the correct implementation of
the Protocol and presentation of the data. The ILT sends the report with the results of the Benchmark to
the Minister. The Minister sends the report to both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the
States General.
Figure 9
The Benchmark 2012
focuses on four themes
Continuity in themes, methods tightened up
Continuity in the methodology and execution of the benchmarking is vitally important. It enables
developments to be tracked over the years and allows companies to evaluate and adjust their operating
policies on that basis. The benchmarking therefore needs to be as good, transparent and stable as
possible. For this reason, the methodology used is evaluated after every benchmarking round and is
supplemented or tightened up where necessary.
As in the previous Benchmarks, the water companies are compared in terms of four themes:
Methodology for Water Quality compares the water quality per parameter group and customer perception
Clean drinking water is essential to consumers’ health. This is why the government has drawn up legal
standards imposing maximums on the quantities of various substances in the drinking water. The
Benchmark applies WQIs to indicate the degree to which drinking water quality complies with these legal
standards. Reporting is done based on four parameter groups: acute health, non -acute health, operational
and customer-oriented. These groups provide insight into the different aspects of drinking water, i.e.:
health, operational management and the customer’s perception. In addition, non-compliance with
Intro
du
ctio
n
13
Water quality
• Drinking water quality
• Non-compliance with standards
• Customer rating
Environment• Energy consumption
• Dehydration
• Residues
• Water losses
• Sustainable purchasing
Service
• Ratings by customers
• Telephone accessibility
• Duration of supply interruptions
• Supply pressure
Finance & Efficiency• Analysis of financial
parameters at company
and process levels
BENCHMARK 2012
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • INTRODUCTION
14
standards in each parameter group is shown, and the way customers feel about the drinking water quality
is also examined in the form of a rating provided by the customer.
Methodology of Service provision measures customer satisfaction, continuity of supply and supply pressure
Customers can come into contact with their water companies in different ways, for instance when their
meter is read or when they move house. A comprehensive survey on the services of the drinking water
companies was held among almost 12,000 customers for the benchmarking of customer satisfaction.
Accessibility by telephone and continuity of supply were also examined. A new aspect which was
compared for the first time in the Benchmark of 2012 was the average pressure at the point of delivery.
Methodology for Environment focuses more on sustainability
Drinking water companies extract, treat and distribute water. Some of these processes have an impact on
the environment. Water companies are trying to minimise their (CO2) footprint by attaining a sustainable
balance between water extraction, environmental management and nature management. In the context of
the Benchmark, the following aspects of the theme are being mapped out: (sustainable) energy
consumption, (recycling of) residues, (prevention of) dehydration of water extraction sites, sustainability of
the procurement policy and distribution losses.
Methodology for Finance & Efficiency in line with drinking water costs in the financial statements
The Benchmark first maps out the tariffs. It then compares the underlying costs using a closed model on
the basis of water companies’ financial statements. Costs are compared both at the company and process
level.
The Benchmark focuses on drinking water activities, ranging from managing the raw water source to
supplying the drinking water to the end user. ‘Other water’ (including industrial water) 2) and other non -
drinking water activities 3) fall outside the scope of this survey. This Benchmark does not cover the other
two links in the water supply chain: sewerage and wastewater treatment 4). These tasks are carried out
under the responsibility of the municipalities and water boards. In 2013 these parties will also be
implementing a Benchmark of their performances over the year 2012.
Various performance indicators are used to enable the water companies to be compared with one another.
For instance, it is much easier to compare the costs of large and small water companies if they are
expressed in terms of costs per administrative connection and/or m3 of drinking water supplied. Where
‘costs per connection’ are referred to in the Benchmark, this means the costs per administrative
connection 5). Where ‘costs per m3‘ are referred to, this means the cost per m3 of drinking water supplied to
end-users.
Figure 10
All 10 water companies
participated in this
Benchmark for 2012.
In terms of connections,
participation percentages
in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006
and 2009 were 85%, 90%,
81%, 100% and 100%,
respectively. The figure
shows each company’s
share in the total number
of connections in the
Netherlands.
100% of drinking water industry participating since 2006
All the Dutch water companies (100% of the sector) 6) participated in the Benchmarks carried out in 2006,
2009 and 2012, with a total of 7.9 million connections. In this report the term ‘Water companies’ refers to
the participating water companies. In terms of connections, participation percentages in 1997, 2000 and
2003 were 85%, 90% and 81%, respectively.
First obligatory Benchmark on the basis of the Drinking Water Act
The Benchmarks for the years 1997 – 2009 were implemented voluntarily by the sector. With effect from
2012 the sector Benchmark became obligatory on the basis of the new Drinking Water Act and the ensuing
Benchmark Protocol. As a result, the Benchmark has taken on a more important position in the drinking
water sector. Besides water companies, the supervisory directors and shareholders, central government
and customers can also use the Benchmark in their evaluation and steering processes.
Supervisory directors and shareholders use the Benchmark for their supervisory tasks
The Benchmark is also being used to supervise the efficiency of water companies’ operational
management. Because these aspects can be compared with other water companies, the companies are
tending to express their ambitions and performances in annual reports and other documentation
increasingly in terms of the performance indicators used in the Benchmark.
15
Intro
du
ctio
n
Evides
Brabant Water
Vitens
13%
14%
32%
PWN 10%
Dunea 8%
WML 7%
6%
4 % 4%
Waternet
Oasen WBGr
WMD
3%
Water companies are constantly in search of opportunities for improvement
The Benchmark offers reference points which companies can use to improve their operational
management. On aspects where the performance of a company is lacking compared with other sector
companies, opportunities for improvement are sought, for example, by exchanging knowledge with the
best-performing company or by analysing underlying choices. The international Benchmark plays a role
for the sector as well as the Dutch Benchmark. Within the EBC programme, the Dutch water companies
compare their performance with that of peer companies in Europe and search jointly for best practices and
innovations in technologies and work processes during Benchmark meetings.
Bound customers obtain insight into the performance of their water company
The Benchmark is a valuable tool as it provides better insight into the performance of the drinking water
industry. Each individual customer can also consult the Benchmark, for example via the internet, and
therefore evaluate and compare the performance of their own water company.
16
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • INTRODUCTION
It is vital for public health that everybody has clean drinking water at their disposal. This is why the
government has drawn up legal standards indicating the maximum quantities of substances which may
occur in drinking water. The Benchmark uses Water Quality Indices (WQIs) to indicate the degree to which
drinking water quality complies with these legal standards7).
In addition, customers’ perceptions about drinking water quality are examined and instances of non -
compliance with standards are shown 8).
On average customers rate water companies 8.4 out of 10 for water quality
As was the case in 2003, 2006 and 2009, a survey was carried out by TNS NIPO among an average of 710
customers into their perceptions of drinking water quality. Customers gave the quality of the water an
average score of 8.4 (Figure 11). This is an improvement compared with 2006 and 2009, when the average
water quality rating given by customers was 8.0 and 8.3 out of 10, respectively.
90% of customers are happy with the price -quality ratio of drinking water
Customers were asked their opinion about the price-quality ratio in order to gain a good picture of their
appreciation of the product ‘drinking water’. 90% of customers indicate that they are happy with this price-
quality ratio. Moreover, 95% of customers state that they like the taste of the drinking water.
Most customers are satisfied with the hardness of the water. 78% of customers are happy with the water
hardness level. This is an increase of 3 percentage points compared with 2009 and an increase of 11
percentage points compared with 2006.
Wate
r qu
ality
17
Water quality:
Remains high
PWN
Brabant Water
Waternet
Vitens
WMD
WML
WBGr
Dunea
Evides
Oasen
Sector 2012
Sector 2009
Sector 2006
Sector 2003
5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Rating water quality
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.4
8.3
8.0
7.7
Figure 11
Customers give the quality
of drinking water an
average score of 8.4. This is
a slight increase over 2009
Source: TNS NIPO
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • WATER QUALITY
18
Customer appreciation with regard to the hardness of the water shows a positive development. This can
be explained by the fact that the water companies have increasingly improved their treatment processes
with softeners over the years.
Methodology for the Water Quality Index based on inspection data
The WQIs are determined as follows:
1. Determining parameters and standards
Water quality is defined as the degree to which a number of parameters ‘at the pump’ (measured at
the pumping station) occurring in drinking water comply with the legal criteria. The Drinking Water
Decree, in the version applicable in the Benchmark year in question, is the basis for selecting
parameters and setting the related standards. The parameters used and their subdivision into
parameter groups are set out in Appendix B.
2. Registering measured values
Water companies are legally obliged to perform regular measurements and report to the
inspectorate via the so called REWAB (Registration tool Water Quality Data) system. The Benchmark
adopts the REWAB system data as the basis for the WQI.
3. Calculating the Water Quality Indices
Water quality is expressed as a WQI per parameter group. This calculation is based on the following
formula: determine for each parameter the average ratio between the measured value and the
corresponding standard stated in the Drinking Water Decree. For each measuring point (usually a
pumping station), the ratios per parameter are converted into an arithmetical average by parameter
group. Then a weighted average of the averages for each parameter group is calculated based on
the cubic metres of drinking water per measuring point. The result of this is the WQI for each
parameter group.
4. Presentation of results
The weighted average WQI for each parameter group is shown by company.
Drinking water quality complies comfortably with all legal standards
The drinking water complies comfortably with legal standards for acute and non-acute health parameters
and for operational and customer-oriented parameters.
Figure 12 to Figure 15 show the water quality index (WQI) for these four parameter groups for each
company. A score of ‘0’ is the highest possible score and is thus considered optimum drinking water.
Water that just complies with the legal standards is given a score of ‘1’.
Almost optimum scores for acute health parameters
This covers bacteria that can form a direct threat to public health (E-coli, Enterococci and Legionella). One
water company was rated 0.001, while all the other companies have a score of 0.000 (Figure 12). This shows
that the micro-organisms in question barely occur in produced drinking water, if at all.
Scores for non-acute health parameters are determined primarily by nitrate
These are chemical substances that can only affect public health through lifelong and large-scale
exposure. Examples include the parameters boron, bromate, nitrate and nickel. For this parameter group,
the sector has an average WQI of 0.005, which is an improvement on the score of 0.007 in 2009 (Figure 13).
The parameter nitrate has the highest share (42%) in the score.
Scores for operational parameters are determined primarily by the saturation index
The water company measures operational parameters, such as oxygen content, acidity and temperature
during the treatment process to ensure good operational management and drinking water quality. They
are unrelated to public health. The industry has an average WQI of 0.025 in this group. This too is an
improvement compared with 2009 when the WQI was 0.028 (Figure 14). In this parameter group, the
parameter saturation index 9) makes up the biggest share (37%) of the WQI.
The scores for customer-oriented parameters, including the hardness, have improved sector-wide
These parameters are perceptible to the consumer because they might, for example, cause colour
deviations which are aesthetically undesirable in drinking water. Customer-oriented parameters are not
directly related to public health, but relate to the comfort of the customer. The water companies have
realised a number of improvements with regard to this parameter group in recent years. The total
hardness, in particular, has improved as a result of the increasing use of softening measures. The main
advantage of this is lower levels of scale in water pipes and household appliances.
The average WQI of this parameter group in the industry is 0.025. This is a significant improvement
compared with 2009, when the average WQI was 0.037 (Figure 15). At 39%, the parameter hardness still
accounts for the biggest share in the WQI of the parameters in this group, but this share has fallen by 5
percentage points compared with 2009.
The good scores for WQI are in line with the high scores given by customers. Both customer appreciation
and the WQI have improved.
19
Wate
r qu
ality
There are various reasons for the fact that the average WQIs are close to the ‘optimum drinking water’
levels. The primary focus of the water companies is keeping the drinking water sources as clean as
possible. Achieving this includes making international agreements on catchment areas of the large rivers,
by nature management and by taking the requirements set out in the European Water Framework Directive
into account. Nevertheless, more and more pollutants are encountered in the drinking water sources, and
the quality of the sources cannot be guaranteed. This makes investments in the treatment of drinking water
essential. The quality of a specific source varies during the year; the water companies’ treatment processes
are therefore geared towards turning the poorest-quality water into reliable drinking water. Secondly, the
industry has been investing systematically to keep the quality of the drinking water up to the current high
level. Drinking water treatment is also geared towards eliminating difficult- to -remove substances from the
water. Since the reliability of the drinking water is paramount and specific contaminants often can no longer
be removed using simple techniques, advanced techniques are applied. As a result, more substances are
removed from the water than is strictly necessary from the legal point of view.
0.000
Water Quality Index Acute health parameter group
0.0010.000
0. 0000.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
Sector
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMD
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
Vitens *)WBGR
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
Water that meets the legal standard
Optimum water
2009 2012 Figure 12
All water companies deliver
drinking water of optimum
quality as regards Acute
health parameters
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
analysis
20
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • WATER QUALITY
*) Note: Vitens has had a single measurement of Legionella which exceeded the standard at one of its pumping stations. No Legionella was
found in the repeat sample, which is why this measurement has not been included in the calculations of the WQI.
Wate
r qu
ality
21
0.0160.014
0.0050.007
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.004 0.003
0.005 0.005
0.009 0.009
0.009 0.012 0.010
0.021
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
Water Quality Index Non-Acute health parameter group
Sector
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMD
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
VitensWBGR
Water that meets the legal standard
2009 2012
Optimum water
0.0570.052
0.0250.028
0.003 0.012
0.009 0.021
0.012 0.014
0.013 0.023
0.0140.014 0.028
0.040 0.032
0.039 0.035
0.016 0.050 0.046
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
Water Quality Index Operational parameter group
Sector
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMD
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
VitensWBGR
Water that meets the legal standard
2009 2012
Optimum water
0.0480.067
0.0250.037
0.000 0.000
0.001 0.007
0.005 0.009 0.026
0.0330.027
0.0310.029
0.044 0.032
0.044 0.037
0.042 0.043
0.053
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
Water Quality Index Customer-oriented parameter group
Sector
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMD
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
VitensWBGR
Water that meets the legal standard
2009 2012
Optimum water
Figure 15
The sector delivers an
excellent water quality as
regards Customer-oriented
parameters, with an
average WQI of 0.025
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
analysis
Figure 14
The sector delivers an
excellent water quality
as regards Operational
parameters, with an
average WQI of 0.025
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
analysis
Figure 13
An average WQI of 0.005
shows that the sector is
delivering excellent water
quality as regards the Non -
Acute health parameters
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for
Public Health and the
Environment analysis
Water companies continue to work on high quality drinking water
The water companies want to continue to ensure that everyone in the Netherlands has complete
confidence in the clean drinking water they supply. As development of the quality of the drinking water
sources is still relatively uncertain, it is a challenge for the water companies to at least maintain the quality
of the drinking water at the current high level.
To a certain extent, the challenge of ensuring the quality of drinking water sources lies in cooperation with
the other parties involved, such as provinces, water boards and the agricultural and horticultural sector.
Agreements are made with these stakeholders on reducing emissions to the sources for the production of
drinking water. International agreements are made regarding the catchment areas of RIWA (Association of
Rhine and Meuse Water Companies) as well as in the European Water Framework Directive, with the aim
of reducing treatment efforts. Specific agreements on reducing emissions are also made with other
sectors, such as the agricultural sector. However, there are also challenges in the field of innovations in the
treatment process, among other things, such as treatment techniques for medicine residues and
nanoparticles.
Tap water is cheaper than bottled water
Water companies work day in, day out on improving water quality. They do so not only to cater for the
needs of the customer (for example, softer water), but also from the point of view of an aspect which is
becoming increasingly important from a social perspective, that is, sustainability. Tap water in the
Netherlands is of such high quality that the use of bottled water is limited. In the Netherlands, the annual
average consumption of bottled water is 21.6 litres per person, whereas in Europe in general the average
consumption is 104 litres per person. Tap water is economical too: a litre of bottled water costs between
200 and 800 times more than a litre of tap water 10).
The number of instances of non-compliance with standards has decreased in comparison with 2009
Besides the WQI, which indicates the regular quality of drinking water supplied, instances of non-
compliance with standards are also analysed. This score is determined by taking the number of instances
of non-compliance with standards in each parameter group and dividing them by the number of million
m3 supplied by the company in question.
Only the instances of non-compliance with standards ‘at the pump’ (measures at the pumping station)
were compared in the 2009 benchmark. In 2012, instances of non-compliance with standards for
distribution were also included. The number of instances of non-compliance with standards ‘at the pump’
for three of the four parameter groups was lower in 2012 than in 2009. The number for the acute health
parameters was comparable with 2009. The development per company shows a varied picture. The
number of instances of non-compliance with standards ‘at the pump’ decreased at some water companies
whereas they increased at others. The number of instances of non-compliance with standards for
distribution occur mainly in the acute health and operational parameters.
22
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • WATER QUALITY
An instance of non-compliance with standards for distribution may come from the public drinking water
supply, but also from the internal installation of the customer 11).
• Acute health parameters
On average there was 1 instance of non-compliance with standards relating to acute health
parameters in the sector per 23 million m³ of water supplied (Figure 16). These instances of non-
compliance with standards concerned Enterococci, E-coli and Legionella bacteria.
• Non-acute health parameters
In this parameter group, there was on average 1 instance of non-compliance with standards per
535 million m³ of water supplied. Not a single instance of non-compliance with standards within
this parameter group was ascertained at nine of the ten companies (Figure 17).
• Operational parameters
On average there was 1 non-compliance with standards per 7 million m³ of water supplied (Figure
18). Most of these were related to the distribution category. The number of instances of non-
compliance with standards at the pump have decreased considerably since 2009. This can be
explained partly by a decrease in the number of instances of non-compliance with standards
relating to the saturation index. Since 2012 this parameter has been assessed as an annual average
and no longer per separate measurement as was still the case in 2009.
• Customer-oriented parameters
On average there was 1 instance of non-compliance with standards in the sector per 19 million m³.
Most of these were measured ‘at the pump’ (Figure 19).
Oasen
Waternet
WML
Evides
Dunea
Brabant Water
PWN
Vitens
WBGr
WMD
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
0
0
0
0.096
0.108
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Number of instances of non-compliance with standards for Acute health parameters per million m³
0.013
0.014
0.024
0.031
0.088
0.003
0.043
At the pump Distribution Figure 16 *)
On average there are
0.043 instances of non-
compliance with standards
for Acute health parameters
per million m3 supplied
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
analysis
*) In 2009 the instances of
non-compliance were only
benchmarked ‘at the pump’
23
Wate
r qu
ality
Methodology for score for non-compliance with standards
Besides the WQI, which indicates the regular quality of drinking water supplied, the scores for non-
compliance with standards are also shown.
• The score for non-compliance with standards is calculated by taking the number of instances of
non -compliance for each parameter, aggregating them by parameter group, then dividing the total
scores of the parameter groups by the number of million m3 supplied by a company.
• The score for instances of non-compliance is based on the same parameters used to determine the
WQI. The standard for hardness in the Drinking Water Decree only applies to softened drinking
water, however. Water companies that take more measurements than the minimum measurement
frequency stated in the Water Supply Decree do not receive additional ‘minus points’ for this when
the score is calculated. Instances of non-compliance above the minimum measurement frequency
are not included in the score.
• In order to improve the reliability and comparability of results between water companies, REWAB
data is used to calculate the score for non-compliance, as is also the case with the WQI. The number
of customers affected and the duration of instances of non-compliance are not registered and are
therefore not included in the score for non-compliance.
• In 2009 the benchmark was limited to measurements ‘at the pump’. In 2012, the instances of non-
compliance in the distribution will also be compared. No corrections are made for duplicate counts.
A duplicate count can occur if an instance of non-compliance with standards ‘at the pump’ could
also lead to non-compliance in the distribution.
24
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • WATER QUALITY
Brabant Water
Dunea
Evides
Oasen
PWN
Waternet
WBGr
WMD
WML
Vitens
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Number of instances of non-compliance with standards for Non-Acute health parameters per million m³ At the pump Distribution
WMD
WML
Brabant Water
Dunea
Waternet
WBGr
Oasen
PWN
Evides
Vitens
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Number of instances of non-compliance with standards for Operational parameters per million m³
0
0.014
0.018
0.028
0.031
0.072
0.112
0.116
0.137
0.194
0.224
0.234
At the pump Distribution
Dunea
Oasen
Waternet
PWN
Brabant Water
Evides
WMD
WBGr
WML
Vitens
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Number of instances of non-compliance with standards for Customer-oriented parameters per million m³
0
0
0
0.010
0.018
0.026
0.036
0.048
0.056
0.124
0.056
0.052
At the pump Distribution
Figure 19 *)
On average there are 0.052
instances of non-compliance
with standards for Customer-
oriented parameters per
million m3 supplied
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
analysis
*) In 2009 the instances of
non-compliance were only
benchmarked ‘at the pump’
Figure 18 *)
On average there are
0.137 instances of non-
compliance with standards
for Operational parameters
per million m3 supplied
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
analysis
Figure 17 *)
On average there are
0.002 instances of non-
compliance with standards
for Non-Acute health
parameters per million m3
supplied
Source:
REWAB, Water companies,
National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment
analysis
Wate
r qu
ality
25
Customers may have to deal with the service provision of their water companies under several
circumstances. For instance, when their meter is read or when they move house. A survey was held
among almost 12,000 customers for benchmarking the services of the water companies. Accessibility by
telephone and continuity of supply were also examined.
Customers remain positive about water companies’ service
The survey was held among customers who had recently come into contact with their water companies.
They were asked to give a rating for the service they receive from their water company and for a number
of other national organisations catering to basic needs.
The water companies score an average of 7.7 out of 10 for service, which is slightly higher than the 7.6
scored in the four previous benchmarks (Figure 20). In 1997 the average rating was also 7.7 out of 10.
The level of customer satisfaction in relation to service therefore remains high. The spread between the
water companies with the highest and the lowest rating was 0.2 points.
The ratings for the service provided by water companies were compared with a number of other national
organisations 12) catering to basic needs. The results for 2012 ranked by customer ratings are:
• Water company: 7.7
• Energy company: 7.4
• Supermarket: 7.1
• Municipality: 6.8
• Postal company: 6.3
• Public transport company: 5.8
On average, the period from 2009 to 2012 shows a decrease in the reference sectors. The appreciation for
the water companies, on the other hand, increased slightly, so that they continue to score consistently
higher than the reference sectors. Figure 21 shows that the scores for service have risen in recent years in
the areas of billing, meter readings and meter replacements. The scores in terms of maintenance, moving
house and assistance during disruptions have remained virtually equal.
26
Service:
Average customer appreciation 7.7
Order: 1997 / 2000 / 2003 / 2006 / 2009 / 2012
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Rating for service
7.8 7.87.7 7.6 7.6
7.87.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.7
7.4 7.16.8
6.3 5.8
Energy company
WML
PWN
Brabant Water
WMD
WBGr
Vitens
DuneaEvid
es
Waternet
Oasen
Sector
Supermarke
t chain
Municipality
Postal c
ompany
Public tra
nsport
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Rating per activity
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
SectorSpread
Billing Meter reading Meterreplacements
Maintenance Assistanceduring disruptions
Moving house
7.68.0 7.9
7.47.7
7.5
Figure 21
Compared with 2009, cus-
tomers are more satisfied
with regard to billing, meter
reading and meter replace-
ment. The rating for the other
activities has remained
much the same.
Source: TNS NIPO
Note: Because of a change
in the methodology used as
of 2009, the results for 2009
and 2012 are not completely
comparable with those for
the years prior to 2009.13)
Figure 20
The rating for services
has risen from an average
of 7.6 in 2009 to an average
of 7.7 in 2012.
This is significantly higher
than other national
organisations catering
to basic needs
Source: TNS NIPO
Methodology for customer survey by means of a written questionnaire and telephone survey
The quality of service was extensively surveyed using a written questionnaire performed by TNS NIPO.
This survey was held among almost 12,000 customers 14)
• The quality of service is defined as the degree to which the expectations of the customer are met.
This is expressed firstly as a general rating indicating the level of service. Secondly, the level of
customer satisfaction with the water companies’ individual services and forms of contact was also
surveyed.
• The services were split into six activities: billing, meter reading, meter replacement, maintenance,
assistance during disruptions and moving house. Satisfaction with the form of contact between the
customer and the water company was also surveyed. Forms of contact were split into five
categories: personal contact and contact via letter, telephone, email and the website.
Serv
ice
27
Customers are satisfied with the various service aspects
Satisfaction by activity and form of contact
The customers were asked specific questions about six activities carried out by the water companies. This
included questions about the performance of the water companies in terms of contacting the customers.
• Activities
Compared with 2009, the ratings for the areas of billing, meter reading and meter replacement have
improved. However, compared with 1997, there has been a decrease in the areas of billing,
maintenance and assistance during disruptions. The rating for the other activities has remained
much the same (Figure 21).
• Forms of contact
The service received with respect to all forms of contact surveyed is seen as very positive. The
spread between the water companies is the biggest for ‘Personal Contact’ and ‘Telephone Contact’
(Figure 22). Compared with 2009, there is a clear improvement in the scores for ‘Personal Contact’
and the scores for ‘written’ contact and contact ‘Via Email’ rose slightly. Customer appreciation of
the other forms of contact remained unchanged.
Accessibility by phone improved again
The survey looked at how easy the various water companies were to access by telephone 15). A common
indicator was used for this, namely the percentage of telephone calls answered by an employee within 20
seconds. This excludes the time spent navigating through a menu.
In 2012, an average 70% of the telephone calls were answered within 20 seconds, an improvement of 2
percentage points compared with 2009 and 32 percentage points compared with 2006. In the sector, the
percentage varied from 58% to 93% (Figure 23).
The average waiting time (excluding time spent navigating through the menu) in the sector was 36
seconds, as opposed to 38 seconds in 2009 and 95 seconds in 2006. The average waiting time per
company varied between 12 and 51 seconds.
28
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • SERVICE
WBGr
WMD
Waternet
Brabant Water
Oasen
PWN
Vitens
WML
Evides
Dunea
Sector 2012
2009
2006
2003
Public sector
Health care sector
Services
Producers /suppliers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage calls answered within 20 seconds
932009201220092012
2009etc.
85
80
78
78
75
66
64
64
58
70
68
38
51
67
59
56
48
2012:
Figure 22
Service is perceived
positively in all forms of
contact. The spread
between the water
companies is the biggest
for ‘Personal Contact’
and ‘Telephone Contact’
Source: TNS NIPO
Note: The survey had a very
low number of respondents
for the ‘Personal Contact’
category 16)
Serv
ice
29
Figure 23
In 2012, 70% of calls in the
industry were answered
within 20 seconds.
This is an improvement
of 2 percentage points
compared with 2009
Source: Ipsos
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Rating per form of contact Spread 2012 Sector
Personal Contact Via Letter (ex. Email) Telephone Contact Via Email Via Website
7.9
7.3 7.4 7.57.7
Spread 2009
30
Water supply interruptions to households in 2012 averaged 15:27 minutes
Reflections on Performance 2006 was the first Benchmark to report on continuity in water supplies. A
distinction was made between the consequences of disruptions (unscheduled interruptions) and regular
maintenance (scheduled interruptions). The total joint duration of interruptions due to disruptions and
maintenance in 2012 amounted to an average of 15:27 minutes per connection.
It should be borne in mind that clients’ perceptions of supply interruptions can differ from reality. An
interruption in the water supply when no one is at home or at night is unlikely to be noticed, unlike an
interruption in the electricity supply (noticeable on a freezer or electric clock, for instance). By comparison
with other European countries, security of supply in the Dutch drinking water industry can be described
as good. The benchmark study of the European Benchmarking Cooperation shows that Dutch water
companies experience 50% less water supply interruptions than those within in the EBC group.
The sector scores better on duration of disruptions than electricity and not as well as gas
The duration of unscheduled disruptions averages 5:57 minutes per year, which is 22% less than in 2009.
Since 2012, the share of the disruptions that are caused by mistakes made by third parties are specified
(Figure 25). In 2012, this is 0:46 minutes, as a result of damage to the network due to excavation activities
by third parties. The total duration of disruptions varied between 1:38 and 12:17 minutes per connection
per year. This is lower than the average 27 minutes of disruption in the electricity supply in the Netherlands
in 2012 17). The gas supply, on the other hand, was interrupted for only 1:04 minutes per year due to
disruptions18).
The duration of interruptions for regular maintenance (scheduled) averages 9:30 minutes per year per
connection and varies between 4:29 and 17:23 minutes (Figure 24). This is a slight increase compared with
the duration of interruptions in 2009 and can partly be explained by increased replacement investments
due to the increasing age of the network.
Water companies comply comfortably with the standard for supply pressure
Water companies should supply the drinking water to the customer with a sufficiently high pressure.
During the supply, it must be at least 150 kilopascal (kPa) at all times. In order to achieve this across the
entire network for any customer situation, the water companies work with an average pressure that is
somewhat higher. This allows customers at the end of the mains system to also be supplied with water
at sufficient pressure. The average supply pressure to the customer in 2012 amounted to 318 kPa, and
the supply pressure at the different companies varied between 243 and 400 kPa (Figure 26).
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • SERVICE
00:00
05:00
10:00
15:00
20:00
25:00
Duration of supply interruption per connection (in mm:ss) for scheduled maintenance
Sector 2006
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMD
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
VitensWBGr
08:02
09:24 09:30
04:29
08:08 08:39 08:4509:48
10:28
11:52
13:49 14:23
17:23
Figure 24
In 2012, the water supply
per connection was
interrupted on average for
9:30 minutes for scheduled
maintenance
Source: KWR Watercycle
Research Institute
00:00
05:00
10:00
15:00
20:00
25:00
Duration of supply interruption per connection (in mm:ss) for unscheduled disruptions Caused by third parties
Sector 2006
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMD
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
VitensWBGr
05:37
07:35
05:57
01:3802:24
04:38 05:01 05:37
07:18 07:4708:34 08:46
12:17
Figure 25
In 2012, the water supply
per connection was
interrupted on average for
5:57 minutes by disruptions,
0:46 minutes of which were
caused by third parties
Source: KWR Watercycle
Research Institute
Waternet
Dunea
PWN
Evides
Oasen
WMD
WBGr
Vitens
Brabant Water
WML
Sector
Average supply pressure
in kPa
243
263
292
301
320
330
332
334
372
400
318
Figure 26
The pressure at the points
of delivery of all the water
companies meets the
standard comfortably
31
Serv
ice
Water companies are the third largest nature managers
The Netherlands has a total of 123,300 hectares of groundwater protection area. 87% of it has other uses
besides water extraction. The other 13% is exclusively earmarked for water extraction (Figure 27).
The nature conservation areas managed by the water companies are not used exclusively for water
extraction, but are also largely open to the public. The total area of nature conservation areas managed by
the water companies is approximately 20,000 hectares (Figure 28). This is 0.5% of the total area of the
Netherlands. By way of comparison: Staatsbosbeheer manages around 264,000 hectares of nature
conservation areas19) and Natuurmonumenten 104,000 hectare20). Of the nature conservation areas
managed by the water companies, 82% is open to the public.
32
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • SERVICE
Figure 28
The industry manages
approximately 20,000
hectares of nature
conservation areas;
82% of this land is open
to the public
Non-exclusive use
of area (approximately
107,200 hectares)
Exclusive use of area:
water extraction area
(approximately
16,100 hectares)
Total groundwater protection area (approximately 123,300 hectares)
13%
87%
Figure 27
13% of the total water
extraction and groundwater
protection area is used
exclusively for water
extraction
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Number of hectares of nature conservation area managed and area open to the public
Total nature conservationarea managed
Not open to the public Open to the public
20,000 ha.
3,600 ha.16,400 ha.
Serv
ice
33
Figure 29
The average environmental
impact resulting from the
consumption of drinking
water by an average family
is very low compared with
that resulting from the use
of electricity and gas
Source:
Reflections on Performance
2000
Environment:
Increase in sustainability & energy consumption
34
Drinking water companies extract, treat and distribute water. Nature and environment are strongly linked
with water sources for drinking water supplies, while components of the operational management also
have an influence on the environment. Water companies are trying to minimise their (CO2) footprint by
attaining a sustainable balance between water extraction and environmental and nature management.
This chapter examines the attempts of the water companies to minimise their impact on the environment.
The environmental impact of the drinking water industry is low
To quantify the environmental impact of the drinking water industry, the environmental impact index was
developed for Reflections on Performance 1997. This was refined in Reflections on Performance 2000.
The results revealed that the environmental impact of drinking water consumption is minimal compared
with the use of electricity and gas, for example (Figure 29). It was also established in 2000 that 93% of the
environmental impact of drinking water consumption was accounted for by energy consumption (72%),
desiccation (20%) and residues (1%).
As in the three previous Benchmarks (2003, 2006 and 2009), these three factors are described separately
in this report. Desiccation is described qualitatively as there is as yet no suitable quantitative indicator
available for this. In addition, it is verified whether water companies have a sustainable purchasing policy
in place, and the distribution losses are identified.
Extra treatment results in higher electricity consumption, sustainable share rises to 100%
The electricity consumed in the drinking water production and distribution processes of all companies has
been identified, with a distinction being made between sustainable and conventional energy generation.
Despite targeted measures such as decreasing pressure in the network and installing speed-controlled
pumps and such, the amount of electricity used in the production and distribution of drinking water has
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
Environmental impact index (in points)
Drinking water Electricity Gas
3,256
118,591
364,133
Figure 30
The total energy use per m3
of drinking water produced
has increased since 1997,
partly due to the softening
process and new treatment
measures. In the same
period the proportion of
sustainable energy rose
to 100%
Note 1: No data is available from Evides and Oasen for 1997, 2000, 2003 and 2000 respectively, partly due to mergers.
Note 2: Shown is the amount of electricity that is used for the drinking water production and distribution together, divided by the amount of
water produced. Companies that - besides drinking water from their own production - distribute purchased drinking water (PWN, Oases and
Evides), come out higher in the graph than those companies whose energy consumption is based solely on their own production.
35
En
viro
nm
en
t
risen since 1997 from an average of 0.45 to 0.52 kWh per cubic metre produced (+15%). The proportion
of the electricity used which is sustainably generated rose from 4% to 100% and the number of water
companies using sustainably generated electricity rose from 2 to 10.
Energy consumption higher because of contamination in watersources and an increase in softening processes
The sources of drinking water are affected by pesticides, medicine residues, endocrine disruptors
and nanoparticles. The water companies are investing in additional treatment processes to remove
these substances from the water. To do so they use advanced techniques such as membrane filtration
and advanced oxidation. The additional treatment stages increase the amount of energy they use.
The same applies to the addition of softening processes and an increase in the application of UV
disinfection. (Figure 30).
Centralised softening more sustainable
Centralised softening (by the water companies) cuts down the amount of scale not only in water pipes
but also in customers’ bathrooms and hot water appliances. This means social cost-savings and less
environmental impact because appliances last longer and customers need to use fewer water-softening
products.
0
0.13
0.26
0.39
0.52
0.65
0.78
0.91
1.04
Energy consumption (KWh/m³ drinking water produced)
0.52
0.37 0.40 0.410.44 0.46
0.56 0.570.59 0.60
0.98
Sector
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMDWBGr
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
Vitens
Sustainable energy Conventional energy
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
98% of the removed residues is recycled
To one company it may be a residue, but to another it is a resource. The Residues Union (Restoffenunie)
was founded by the water companies in 1995 to find new uses for residues from the production of
drinking water. Its goal is to find useful applications for residual flows which have a lower or no impact on
the environment and are also financially attractive for water companies. All the water companies in the
Netherlands are shareholders in the Residues Union. In 2012, 93% of the residues were disposed of via the
Residues Union and 7% by the water companies themselves.
Figure 31
In 2012, 98% of the removed
residues were recycled
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • ENVIRONMENT
36
65,965
21,481
52,808
14,256
5,536
46
4,599
569
3,649
16,365
3,000
188,274
65,965
21,256
52,600
14,256
5,536
42
4,599
569
3,649
16,365
0
184,837
100
99.0
99.6
100
100
91.3
100
100
100
100
0
98.2
Calcium granules
Iron sludge,
semi-solid
Iron sludge, liquid
Chalk sludge
Filter materials
Activated charcoal
Powdered carbon sludge
Pond bed
Iron lime sludge
Aluminium sludge
Other
Sector
Use/destination
building materials, floor insulation, mineral raw
materials, soil improvement, glass industry
building materials, construction materials work,
biogas sulphur-binding
biogas sulphur-binding, dephosphatising sewage water,
construction materials work, household waste digestion
maintenance liming
construction materials work, phosphate binding
construction materials work
construction materials work
construction materials work
construction materials work
construction materials work
Amount Recovered
(tonne) (tonne) (%)
29,276
9,927
8,072
12,062
11,980
59,612
17,774
21,949
4,327
13,295
188,274
29,276
9,927
8,072
12,058
11,980
56,404
17,774
21,949
4,102
13,295
184,837
100
100
100
100
100
94.6
100
100
94.8
100
98.2
■ Brabant Water
■ Dunea
■ Evides
■ Oasen
■ PWN *)
■ Vitens
■ Waternet
■ WBGr
■ WMD
■ WML
Sector
Amount Recovered
(tonne) (tonne) (%)
Company Figure 32
Residues and useful applications
per company
*)
Note: The water flow (brine) discharged
by a membrane filtration plant, the
permeate of which is infiltrated in the
dunes for drinking water supplies, has
not been taken into account.
Amount of residues per type
Amount of residues per company
37
En
viro
nm
en
t
In 2012, 98% of the removed residues were recycled (Figures 31 and 32). Sludge containing iron, for
instance, which is released when rinsing the rapid filters, is used as a colouring agent and filler in the brick
industry. Calcium granules are, among other things, used by the steel industry and for the gasification of
coal. Other residues are used as building materials, for instance as a filler for noise barriers along
motorways.
Raw materials and building materials must comply with strict environmental quality requirements. The
Residues Union therefore monitors compliance with these requirements. Additionally, research is being
performed aimed at improving the usefulness of residues.
Water companies continue to tackle desiccation
In recent years the water companies have continued their fight against desiccation. They have proactively
searched for solutions to this problem. In the fight against desiccation, the volumes of water extracted
from various production sites have been deliberately reduced in favour of other areas which are less
vulnerable to this problem.
Combating desiccation by closing, relocating or downsizing extraction and innovation
There is no direct correlation between the water company’s total water extraction and desiccation.
Desiccation can occur when (shallow) groundwater is extracted near nature conservation areas that are
highly dependent on the groundwater level or the supply of groundwater via the soil. In such cases, water
companies can compensate for this by introducing production-limiting measures or by allowing more
water in. These measures vary from closing and relocating production sites and reducing water extraction
to researching the extraction of brackish water instead of fresh groundwater and measures to rehydrate
the extraction area.
In 2006 the Desiccation Taskforce issued an advisory report on the best way to address desiccation. The
recommendations included concentrating on the TOP areas (the most severely desiccated areas) and
better cooperation by the parties concerned. These recommendations were broadly supported by the
water companies. In recent years, water companies have been involved in combating desiccation in
various TOP areas. Covenants have been agreed with the parties involved, such as the provinces,
municipalities and the nature associations. Some of the anti -desiccation measures described above are an
outcome of these covenants.
Four water companies have, for instance, reduced the production volume at various sites in the last three
years. With these efforts, they contribute to the restoration of nature conservation areas by combating
desiccation, particularly in the Natura 2000 areas. Besides the above, the water companies also participate
in long-term studies, such as those on climate change and the Natura 2000 studies.
Industry contributes to Natura 2000 areas with protected flora and fauna
Approximately three quarters of the nature conservation areas managed by the water companies are
Natura 2000 areas. These are areas where conservation measures are implemented for various protected
plant and animal species. In order to keep the biodiversity as intact as possible, management plans have
been drawn up in collaboration with the provinces and other interested parties. Collaboration is key in this
area because the problems surrounding the preservation of intact ecological values often originate from
outside, such as airborne nitrogen deposits.
The drinking water industry has long been involved in the ecological management of nature conservation
areas designed to preserve species. This is now being continued and intensified in the management plans
for Natura 2000 and the Programmatic Approach to Nitrogen (Programmatische Aanpak Stikstof). The
measures taken by the water companies include measures to combat desiccation and various mitigating
measures are also being put in place to ensure that the protected flora and fauna are not disturbed. The
water companies make a valuable contribution to the conservation and restoration of ecological values in
the Netherlands.
Water companies intensively engaged with the sustainability of the procurement policy
Sustainable purchasing means that environmental, social and economic aspects are taken into account
during the procurement process. By purchasing sustainably, the water companies and authorities can
38
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • ENVIRONMENT
Has a policy for Sustainable Purchasing, which lays down ambitions and objectives, been drawn up?
Have the responsibilities, tasks and competences for achieving these ambitions and objectives been laid down?
Is there a procedure for checking the items purchased for sustainability?
Do you evaluate whether internal agreements regarding Sustainable Purchasing are complied with regularly (at least once a year)?
Do you communicate your ambitions and objectives regarding Sustainable Purchasing externally?
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMDWBGr
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
Vitens
Figure 33
All the water com-
panies have drawn
up a sustainable
procurement policy.
In a few cases, the
internal procedures
still have to be
worked out in
more detail or be
implemented
Sustainability of the procurement policy
significantly boost the market for sustainable products. As a result, more products will be launched on
the market which can measure up to non-sustainable products in terms of price and quality.
All water companies have implemented a sustainable purchasing policy (Figure 33). The aim of the sector
is to achieve 100% sustainable purchasing by 2015. Most of the water companies provide information
about this policy in their annual report.
Dutch water companies have low distribution losses
A good indication of the distribution loss is given by what is known as the quantity of ‘Non Revenue Water’
(NRW). This is the difference between the water supplied to the distribution network and the water billed
to customers. Besides real losses due to leaks and flushing (cleaning) of the pipelines, this difference
comprises unbilled authorised consumption (e.g. for fire extinguishing systems) and apparent losses
(resulting from illegal consumption and measuring differences). Figure 34 shows the quantity of NRW per
company. The average quantity of NRW in the sector is 5.0% of the drinking water delivered into the
network and the quantity of NRW at the different companies varies from 2.3% to 7.6%. Expressed per km
pipeline, the quantity of NRW varies between 0.6 and 2.7 m3 per kilometre per day, with a sector average
of 1.3. Since the quantity of NRW also includes the unbilled consumption and apparent losses, the real
distribution losses are lower than the aforementioned 5.0% and 1.3 m3/km/day. International comparisons
by the European Benchmarking Cooperation (EBC) have shown that the distribution losses in the
Netherlands are 3 to 4 times lower than the median of the EBC group.
En
viro
nm
en
t
39
Figure 34
The average quantity of
Non Revenue Water in
the sector is 5.0% of the
drinking water delivered
into the network
=
3.9
3.6
12.9
3.1
5.9
17.0
2.5
2.2
1.2
4.2
56
2.3
4.8
7.6
6.5
5.7
4.9
3.7
5.1
4.1
5.5
5.0
0.6
2.1
2.7
2.1
1.6
1.0
2.2
1.2
0.6
1.3
1.3
■ Brabant Water
■ Dunea
■ Evides
■ Oasen
■ PWN
■ Vitens
■ Waternet
■ WBGr
■ WMD
■ WML
Sector
Quantity of NRW
million m3 % of the drinking m3 per km
water delivered into pipeline
the network per day
Non Revenue Water per company
This chapter compares the financial performances of the water companies, using a closed model based on
their financial statements. This comparison is performed in two steps:
1. Company level
The drinking water tariffs are compared and the costs of drinking water are examined at the
company level. These costs are divided into four cost categories: taxes, costs of capital,
depreciation and operational costs.
2. Process level
Operational costs form one of the cost categories at company level. Because water companies have
the most control over this category in the short term, it is examined in more depth: operational
costs are allocated to different processes and can subsequently be compared at the process level.
Decrease in the cost of drinking water
Since 1997 total costs have decreased by 11.8% per administrative connection and increased by 10.0% per
m3 supplied. After adjusting for inflation the costs have decreased by 35.4% per connection and by 19.4%
per m3 (Figure 35). The difference between cost trends per connection and per m3 is a result of the fact that
less and less water is being consumed per connection: in 1997, 169 m3 was consumed per connection,
while this was 135 m3 in 2012. The reduction in consumption is partly due to demographic factors such as
smaller families (fewer people per household), more water-efficient appliances (e.g. washing machines)
and because in the business market, a certain amount of drinking water has been substituted by process
water.
Causative factors for this trend include the increasing process automation and optimisation based on best
practices. Thanks to improved tools and equipment and because they receive their work orders digitally,
the work of fitters and maintenance staff is managed increasingly efficiently, enabling them to perform
their jobs more efficiently. Moreover, extensive cooperation between water companies on sub processes,
further scale increases (with regard to staff departments, among others) and the integrated water chain
play a role in this.
The substantial decrease in costs between 2009 and 2012 is, to a large extent, related to the abolition of
the groundwater tax with effect from 1 January 2012. The effect this has, is shown in Figure 5 and Figure
6. Compared with 2009, taxes have decreased by an average of € 18 per connection and € 0.13 per m3
supplied. The water companies have passed on this tax advantage fully to the customer in the form of a
tariff reduction.
Due to the favourable development of the cost of drinking water, the drinking water costs for customers
are low in proportion to the average household budget: the share of the average household budget 21)
which is spent on drinking water is 0.6% (Figure 36). In 2012, the drinking water invoice for an average
household with a consumption of 101 m³/year was € 159. The amount consists of the drinking water tariff
averaging € 134, € 16 in Tap Water Tax and € 9 in VAT.
40
Finance & Efficiency:
Costs for drinking water continue to fall
41
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
0
20
40
60
80
100
140
120
88.2
110.0
80.6
64.6
Cost trends (1997 = 100)
Per connection Per cubic metre
Real
201220092006200320001997 201220092006200320001997
Nominal
Inde
x
Figure 35
Since 1997 costs have
decreased by 11.8% per
connection and increased
by 10.0% per m3 supplied.
After adjusting for inflation
(real costs), the costs have
decreased by 35.4% per
connection and by 19.4%
per m3
28.8
H
ousi
ng
16.8 Transport
Education
and leisure
16.8
Food
1
5.3
Care 6.8
Clothing 6.0
Gas 3.3
Electricity 2.8
Other 2.7
Drinking water 0.6 %
Figure 36
0.6% of the average
household budget is
spent on drinking water
Source:
CBS, Accenture analysis
Drinking water tariff decreases, spread increases
Drinking water tariffs are compared on the basis of five consumer categories (Figure 37). These are
integral tariffs calculated on the basis of a fixed and a variable component. The consumer categories
differ in terms of annual drinking water consumption and the throughput capacity of the water meter.
Appendix D shows the drinking water tariffs per supply area.
The average drinking water tariff in 2012 for a household with a consumption of 130 m3 per year is € 1.25,
which is the same as in 1997. In 2009, this tariff was € 1.36. The decrease in comparison to 2009 is, to a
large extent, related to the abolition of the groundwater tax. The average impact of this on all tariff groups
and all companies combined is a decrease in tariffs of € 0.13 per m3. After adjusting for inflation, the
drinking water tariff for this consumer category decreased by 27% over the period 1997 -2012. The tariff for
an average household (101 m³/year) is € 1.33 per m3 in 2012 22).
The average drinking water tariff for a business user with a consumption of 10,000 m3 per year (and a
capacity of 5 m3 per hour) in 2012 is € 0.82. In 1997, this tariff was € 0.99 and in 2009, it was € 1.01. After
adjusting for inflation, the drinking water tariff for this consumer category decreased by 39% over the
period 1997- 2012.
There is a substantial spread in tariffs between the tariff areas of the water companies. For example, the
spread for a household consuming 130 m3 per year is € 1.36 per m3. The spread between the tariff areas
varies between € 0.95 and € 2.31 (Figure 75 on page 67), which is significantly higher than in earlier years.
The increased spread can, on the one hand, be attributed to the abolition of the groundwater tax. The
tariffs of the water companies that produce drinking water from groundwater have decreased as a result,
whereas it has had no or little effect on the tariffs of companies that use (mainly) surface water as a source.
On the other hand, municipalities which levy distribution refunds cause a greater spread at the top. These
distribution refunds are charged on to the residents of the municipalities in question and lead to local
increases in the annual drinking water invoices of up to € 40.
42
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
Spread of tariffs in € per m³
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
Spread Sector
Single personhousehold50 m³ / year
Household130 m³ / year
Small business user1,500 m³ / year
3 m³ / hour
Business user10,000 m³ / year
5 m³ / hour
Large business user25,000 m³ / year
10 m³ / hour
0.810.820.88
1.25
1.90
Figure 37
At € 1.25 per m3, the
drinking water tariff for
the consumer category
‘Household’ is back at
the level of 1997.
The spread between the
water companies is € 1.36.
The drinking water tariff
for the ‘Business user’
decreased by 17 % in the
same period to € 0.82,
with a spread between
water companies of € 1.33
Methodology for Finance & Efficiency based on a closed model
The methodology for Finance & Efficiency uses a closed model, based on the financial statements of
each water company. The focus is on the supply of drinking water to customers. The revenues and costs
of non-drinking water activities are not taken into account.
The costs of drinking water are divided into four cost categories: taxes, costs of capital, depreciation and
operational costs:
1. Taxes
This cost category includes taxes and dues that are a direct result of the drinking water provision,
such as provincial groundwater levy and pipeline and concession payments (distribution refunds).
VAT and Tap Water Tax are not included in this Benchmark, because water companies, as with-
holding agents, only function as an ‘intermediary’ in this respect.
2. Costs of capital
Costs of capital include the costs of both debt capital and shareholder equity. In order to keep the
financial model closed, the financial result has also been indicated as costs of capital. This approach
means that from the customer’s perspective all the costs are represented.
3. Depreciation
All depreciations of tangible assets, intangible assets (for example goodwill) and financial fixed
assets (for example participations) are included and valued at the historical cost according to the
annual accounts.
4. Operational costs
Operational costs are related to the daily operations of water companies and comprise cost types
such as personnel, materials and services provided by third parties. They are subsequently
assigned to five processes.
43
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
Taxes
Costs of capitalDrinking water
Non-drinking water Non-drinking water
Total
Turnover
Non-drinking water Drinking water
Depreciations
Operational costs
The spread in total costs between water companies has decreased significantly since 1997
Differences in drinking water tariffs between water companies can be made easier to understand with the
help of background cost categories. The total costs per connection and per m3 are therefore divided into
four cost categories. The extent to which the corresponding costs are controllable differs per water
company:
• Taxes
The amount of taxes to be paid is partly related to non-controllable distribution refunds levied by
municipalities and partly to the type of water a water company extracts (in connection with the
provincial groundwater levies). The tax costs can be reduced by extracting less groundwater and
using more surface water. However, tax costs are not easy for a water company to control,
especially in the short term.
• Costs of capital
These costs are related to a water company’s financial structure. Costs of capital arise from interest -
bearing debt capital and the financial result. These costs can be changed by adjusting the financial
structure (shifting between profit and interest) or by changing the tariffs.
• Depreciation
The depreciation costs result from investment decisions – mainly made in the past – and the
depreciation periods applied. These costs are not easy to control in the short term.
• Operational costs
These costs are affected by, amongst other things, the efficiency of the operational management. In
the short term, therefore, management can exert greater control over operational costs than it can
over other cost categories. The extent to which the costs can be controlled depends partly on
external factors, such as the quality of the sources.
Figure 38 and 39 show the distribution of costs per category for each water company.
The average costs per connection amount to € 172. The spread of costs between the companies varies
from € 144 to € 215 per connection. Spanning a difference of € 71, the spread in 2012 is narrower than in
1997, when it was € 104. The spread has increased by € 22 since 2009, when it amounted to € 49. This
increase is, to large extent, related to the abolition of the groundwater tax in 2012. The water companies
that use groundwater have passed on this tax advantage to the customer in the form of a tariff reduction.
As a result, the cost differences between water companies that do and those that do not use groundwater
in the production of drinking water have increased. For the 'surface water' companies, the abolition of the
groundwater tax resulted in little or no reduction in costs.
The average costs per m3 amount to € 1.27, with a spread of € 0.79 per m3. Because the average
consumption per connection differs between water companies, the ranking on costs per m3 differs from
that on costs per connection.
44
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
45
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
Sector
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
144
144
145
157
192
194
202
204
210
215
172
2
3
3
3
1
4
1
16
7
0
4
5
29
30
16
42
44
35
15
19
32
30
32
39
23
29
50
53
48
58
39
54
42
105
74
90
109
98
92
119
116
145
128
97
Total costs€ / connection
Taxes€ / connection
Costs of capital€ / connection
Depreciations€ / connection
Operational costs€ / connection
Figure 38
The total costs per
connection amount to an
average of € 172, with a
spread between water
companies of € 71 per
connection. The total costs
are divided into four cost
categories: taxes, costs of
capital, depreciation and
operational costs
Total costs€ / m³
Taxes€ / m³
Costs of capital€ / m³
Depreciations€ / m³
Operational costs € / m³
0.97
1.02
1.05
1.11
1.27
1.45
1.52
1.58
1.69
1.76
1.27
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.13
0.03
0.20
0.04
0.11
0.22
0.29
0.32
0.26
0.14
0.25
0.13
0.22
0.15
0.23
0.19
0.30
0.35
0.38
0.36
0.29
0.43
0.50
0.31
0.60
0.75
0.73
0.57
0.60
0.74
0.90
1.10
1.01
1.00
0.71Sector
Oasen
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
PWN
Figure 39
The average costs amount
to € 1.27 per m3, with a
spread of € 0.79 per m3.
Because the average
consumption per connection
varies between drinking
water companies, the
figures deviate with respect
to the costs per connection
Comment: For each category in Figure 38 and 39, darker blues reflect higher costs.
Figure 40
The average equity of the
water companies is 32% of
the balance sheet total,
varying per company from
3% to 52%
Note:
Note: The data in this table
includes both drinking water
activities and non-drinking
water activities
Balance sheet total Equity Equity compared
Share capital Reserves Total equity with balance sheet
x million € x million € x million € x million € total in %
805
519
1,075
194
704
1,681
317
162
145
550
6,153
0.3
20.0
0.2
0.3
6.8
5.8
0.0
0.1
0.1
2.3
35.8
418
141
448
79
170
389
10
58
42
154
1,910
418
161
448
80
177
394
10
58
42
156
1,946
51.9 %
31.1 %
41.7 %
41.1 %
25.1 %
23.5 %
3.3 %
36.1 %
29.2 %
28.4 %
31.6 %
■ Brabant Water
■ Dunea
■ Evides
■ Oasen
■ PWN
■ Vitens
■ Waternet
■ WBGr
■ WMD
■ WML
Sector
Capital formation
In 2012 taxes accounted for around 2% of total costs (as against 10% in 1997) (excluding consumption
taxes), costs of capital for 17% (as against 22% in 1997), depreciation for 24% (as against 19% in 1997)
and operational costs for 56% (as against 48% in 1997).
Water companies have an average solvency of 32%
The average equity of water companies makes up 32% of the balance sheet total (Figure 40). The greater
part of this equity consists of the water companies’ reserves and a very small part of registered share
capital. The spread between the water companies is 49%.
Most of the spread can be explained by the special position of the Stichting Waternet which implements
the water supply tasks on behalf of the municipality of Amsterdam; their financial backers set totally
different requirements with regard to solvency. In the case of the other water companies, the drinking
water task is implemented in a limited liability company structure, as a result of which the financial
backers set higher solvency requirements.
On the basis of the State Secretary’s order of 24 October 2011 (No. DP2011055738) water companies may
have a maximum solvency of 70%, unless the Minister has granted an exemption. All the water companies
are comfortably below this percentage.
Six of the ten water companies do not pay any dividends
Figure 41 shows that, in 2012, 6 of the 10 water companies did not pay any dividends to their shareholders.
Of the four other water companies, WMD hardly pays any dividends and PWN a very small amount. The
average dividend for the sector as a whole is 38% of the total profit. The remaining 62% is set aside and
used to finance the operating activities and to strengthen the equity of the water companies.
Average expenditure on research and development € 2.24 per administrative connection
The average expenditure on research and development in the sector is € 2.24 per connection (Figure 42).
There is a spread between water companies of € 2.96 per administrative connection. A total of € 18 million
is spent in the sector, which represents 1.2% of the sector’s total turnover.
Cost trends since the introduction of the Benchmark
Figure 43 and 44 show the change in nominal costs per water company since 1997. The total costs per
connection have decreased by an average of € 23 since 1997. As from 1 January 2012, the groundwater
tax has been abolished. This benefited companies that prepare drinking water from surface water less
than it did groundwater companies. The spread between the largest cost increaser (€ 10) and decreaser
( - € 43) amounts to € 53 per connection.
46
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
47
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
Figure 41
6 of the 10 water companies
do not pay any dividends to
their shareholders
Note: The data in this table
includes both drinking water
activities and non-drinking
water activities
Figure 42
In 2012 the average
expenditure on research
and development amounts
to € 2.24 per administrative
connection
Total costs 1997€ / connection
Total costs 2012€ / connection
252
231
230
179
233
169
154
216
148
192
195
– 43
– 39
– 36
– 34
– 29
– 25
– 10
– 1
+ 9
+ 10
– 23
– 50 – 40 – 30 – 20 – 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
210
192
194
145
204
144
144
215
157
202
172Sector
Oasen
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
PWN
Figure 43
The spread between the
biggest cost increaser and
decreaser amounts to
€ 53 per connection. Total
costs per connection have
decreased by an average
of € 23 since 1997
Revenue Profit Dividend
x million € x million € x million € % of profit % of revenue
186
139
215
73
178
398
119
49
35
112
1,502
39.4
0.8
33.7
4.7
9.0
29.6
6.0
4.0
0.2
7.4
134.8
-
-
35.1
-
0.8
14.9
-
-
0.0
-
50.8
-
-
104 %
-
9 %
50 %
-
-
1 %
-
38 %
-
-
16 %
-
0 %
4 %
-
-
0 %
-
3 %
■ Brabant Water
■ Dunea
■ Evides
■ Oasen
■ PWN
■ Vitens
■ Waternet
■ WBGr
■ WMD
■ WML
Sector
1.46
1.46
1.74
0.88
2.35
5.87
2.06
0.34
0.67
0.86
17.69
1.32
2.39
1.70
2.62
3.04
2.31
4.19
1.23
3.33
1.60
2.24
■ Brabant Water
■ Dunea
■ Evides
■ Oasen
■ PWN
■ Vitens
■ Waternet
■ WBGr
■ WMD
■ WML
Sector
Expenditure
x million € € per connection
Dividends paid
Expenditure on research and development
The total costs per m3 have increased by an average of € 0.11 since 1997. The spread between the largest
cost increaser (€ 0.29) and decreaser (- € 0.01) amounts to € 0.30 per m3. A significant reason for this
increase is the decrease in consumption per connection (Appendix E, Figure 80).
Cost-efficiency greatly improved
To gain an understanding of the development of cost-effectiveness from a customer's perspective, the
development of the real costs has been specified for each company (prices of 2012).
Figure 46 shows that the real costs in the sector have decreased by an average of € 95 per connection,
from € 267 in 1997 to an average of € 172 in 2012.
Figure 45 shows the development of the cost-efficiency by means of indices, 2012 being set at 100. A
decrease in costs of 35% can be seen in the sector between 1997 and 2012. The efficiency improvement
per company varied between 22% and 41%. Differences between companies are partly connected to
differences in factors which are only minimally controllable, if at all, such as the water treatment effort.
Explanatory factors
A number of explanatory factors were identified on the basis of regression analysis in 2006 and 2009. The
analysis was repeated in 2012 and the results of the earlier analyses were largely confirmed. A summary
of cost categories with associated causative factors is shown in Figure 47.
A diagram, which presents the associated data per drinking water company, is included for each
explanatory factor in Appendix E. Besides the factors referred to in the diagram, other factors may also
exert an influence, such as the soil’s susceptibility to settlement or the extent of urbanisation. However,
these have not been statistically demonstrated in the analysis. The factors affecting costs are:
• Production type
Water companies can be characterised on the basis of the type of water they extract 23). Surface
water companies generally have higher total costs per m3 than groundwater companies, because
they use a more extensive treatment process. These higher costs are mainly reflected in the
operational costs. In addition, differences in the logistical basic form (number of and capacity of
the production facilities) between groundwater and surface water companies have an influence on
the height and composition of the cost.
• Consumption per connection
Companies with a lower average consumption per connection have higher costs per m3 as a rule,
especially in terms of depreciation and operational costs. Average consumption has decreased by
20% since 1997, partially thanks to water- saving measures and demographic factors (smaller
households).
48
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
49
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
Total costs 1997€ / m³
Total costs 2012€ / m³
1.76
0.96
1.03
1.50
1.31
0.87
1.10
0.86
1.45
1.23
1.16
– 0.01
+ 0.01
+ 0.08
+ 0.09
+ 0.14
+ 0.16
+ 0.17
+ 0.20
+ 0.25
+ 0.29
+ 0.11
– 0,50 – 0,40 – 0,30 – 0,20 – 0,10 0 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50
1.76
0.97
1.11
1.58
1.45
1.02
1.27
1.05
1.69
1.52
1.27Sector
Oasen
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
PWN
Figure 44
The spread between the
biggest cost increaser and
decreaser amounts to
€ 0.30 per m3. The total
costs per m3 have increased
by an average of € 0.11
since 1997. Because the
average consumption per
connection differs between
water companies, the
picture deviates with regard
to costs per connection
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Trends in the real costs per connection (2012 = 100)
135 14
1
139
139
138
138
136
132
127
123
Sector
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMDWBGr
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
Vitens
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
Inde
x
122
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Trends in the real costs in euros per connection (prices 2012)
172
145
210
192
194
144
204
144
215
202
157
Sector
WaternetDunea
PWNEvides
WMDWBGr
Brabant Water
WMLOasen
Vitens
Figure 45
The average improvement
in efficiency in the sector
since 1997 amounts to 35%,
varying between 22% and
41% per company
Figure 46
The real costs per
administrative connection,
have decreased at all the
companies since the
introduction of the Bench-
mark. Adjusted for inflation
to prices 2012, the average
real costs decreased by
€ 95 from 267 in 1997 to
€ 172 in 2012
• Network complexity
Network complexity is defined as the number of administrative connections per kilometre of pipe.
As a rule, operational costs will rise with increasing numbers of connections per kilometre. This is
connected with a ‘crowded’ subsurface, which makes it harder to reach pipes and easier to damage
them. On the other hand, a very low network complexity can also lead to higher total costs because
more kilometres of pipe are required per connection.
Differences in taxes are mainly a result of the distribution refunds
Water companies are faced with various cost-increasing taxes. Of these, the groundwater tax had the most
influence on the total tax costs up to 2012. As of 1 January 2012, this tax has been abolished. This results
in a sharp drop in tax costs in 2012 (Figure 48). The remaining cost-increasing taxes are the provincial
groundwater levies and distribution refunds. Distribution refund levies consist of fees for having water
pipes in public land and are levied by some municipalities.
On average, cost-increasing taxes account for € 4 per connection. Figure 48 shows that the tax component
of the three companies with the lowest taxes amounts to an average of € 1 per connection, while the tax
component of the three companies with the highest taxes averages € 8 per connection. The main reason
for this difference is the degree to which municipalities in the various supply areas levy distribution
refunds on the water pipelines.
On average, 18% of the integral water tariff of a householdcomprises taxes
The Tap Water Tax – introduced in 2000 – and VAT are not included in the Benchmark because as
withholding agents, water companies only function as an ‘intermediary’ in respect of these consumption
taxes.
These taxes are only included in Figure 49, though not in the other figures. This figure shows that for an
average household user, the tax component amounts to 18% of the average integral drinking water tariff,
or € 0.28 per m3. In 1997, this component amounted to 15% of the average integral drinking water tariff.
The average costs of capital have decreased by 32% since 1997
Costs of capital consist of costs for debt capital (interest) and costs of shareholder equity.
The average costs of capital have decreased by 32% from € 44 to € 30 per connection since 1997 (Figure
50). The spread between the water companies with the lowest and highest costs of capital has decreased
by 58% since 1997 (or from a spread of € 65 per connection in 1997 to € 28 in 2012). However, in the
period from 2009 to 2012, the costs of capital showed rose again by 23%.
50
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
51
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
Figure 47
For the company level a
number of explanatory
factors have been identified
on the basis of regression
analysis
0
25
50
75
100 Taxes in € per connection
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
1 48
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
Structure of the household water tariff, including consumption taxes, in euros per m³
VAT
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
6 %
9 %
85 %
6 %
8 %
8 %
78 %
6 %
9 %
9 %
77 %
6 %
9 %
9 %
76 %
6 %
9 %
9 %
75 %
6 %
2 %
10 %
82 %
Tap Water Tax
Groundwater tax and distribution refunds
Drinking water tariff (excl. taxes)
Figure 48
The spread of taxes
(between the highest and
the lowest three) is € 7 per
connection; in 2009 this was
€ 26. The difference with
previous years has to do
primarily with the abolition
of the groundwater tax
Note 1: Although this has not been submitted to a regression analysis, it is clear that the tax costs depend on the regional tax regime
(especially in regard to the amount of provincial groundwater levies and distribution refunds).
Note 2: Nevertheless, a very low network complexity can also lead to higher total costs because more kilometres of pipe are required
per connection.
Figure 49
If we consider the average
integral tariff per m3 of
supplied drinking water
for an average household,
the tax component has
increased from 15% to 18%
since 1997
Costs of capital per m3
are higher with:
• No explanatory factors
identified
Depreciation per m3
is higher with:
• Lower use
per connection
• Lower use
of groundwater
Operational costs per m3
are higher with:
• Use of surface water
• Lower use per connection
• Higher network complexity
Taxes per m3
are higher with:
• No explanatory factors
identified
The total costs per m3 of drinking water supplied are higher with:
• Lower consumption per connection
Depreciations remain stable
The level of depreciations is dependent on the assets of water companies and the depreciation periods
applied.
In 2012 average depreciation was € 42 per connection (Figure 51). This is an increase of 12% compared
with 1997. The spread between water companies amounts to a factor of 2.2.
Since 1997, the real operational costs per connection have shown a reduction of 24%
The operational costs amount to 56% of total costs per connection. These costs are affected by, amongst
other things, the efficiency of the operational management.
The average operational costs amount to € 97 per connection and have increased by 3% since 1997
(Figure 52). After adjusting for inflation, the operational costs have decreased by 24% since 1997. The
spread between water companies has increased by 26%, or € 10 per connection, since 1997.
Personnel costs and services by third parties account for 40% and 44% of operational costs respectively
(Figure 53). The share of services in operational costs by third parties increased by 1 percentage point
between 1997 and 2012. In the period 2009 to 2012 the share of services by third parties decreased by
2 percentage points while the share of personnel costs increased by 5 percentage points. The increase in
personnel costs is related to a change in the collective bargaining agreement in which employee benefits
(such as free days) were converted to money (flexible employment conditions budget, FAB). The other
costs have decreased by 3 percentage points since 2009.
The share of distribution costs has decreased
To make water companies’ operational costs comparable at a more detailed level, they are assigned to five
processes. Because water companies apply different accounting methods, the operational costs are first
adjusted for a number of aspects 24). This adjustment improves the comparability of the operational costs
of the companies.
The production process, distribution process, process-supporting process, sales process and general
process jointly form the operational processes in the Benchmark. These processes are compared against
one another at the operational cost level.
Figure 54 shows that the share of the distribution process against all operating processes has decreased
by 12 percentage points since 1997.
52
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
53
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Costs of capital in € per connection
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
14
30
41
Figure 50
The average costs of
capital have decreased
by 32% from € 44 to € 30
since 1997
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Depreciations in € per connection
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
25
42
55
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Operational costs in € per connection
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
82
97
1291997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
Figure 51
Depreciations have
increased slightly since
1997: the average fluctuates
around € 42 per connection
while the spread amounts
to a factor of 2.2
Figure 52
Average operational costs
have increased by € 3 since
1997. The spread between
the three drinking water
companies with the lowest
and highest operational
costs has increased by 26%
compared with 1997
The increase in the share of the general process in the total operational processes since 1997 is in part
attributable to the increased merger activities in the drinking water sector (whereby costs come before
benefits) and the increase in (internal) reorganisation costs. Since 2009, the share in the costs of the
general process has decreased by 2 percentage points.
The increase in production process costs is attributable to extra treatment stages added by the water
companies. Examples include stages for softening and removing pesticides and medicine residues from
drinking water by membrane filtration and advanced oxidation. These additional treatment stages also
lead to an increase in energy consumption. The increase in energy costs is enhanced by higher energy
prices.
The costs of the production process have risen in real terms since1997, while the spread has increased in absolute terms butdecreased in relative terms
This process comprises all activities relating to the treatment of water and operating and maintaining
production facilities.
The production costs of an average water company amount to € 0.17 per m3 produced (Figure 55). Despite
an increasing level of process automation, these costs have increased by 47% since 1997. After adjusting
for inflation the costs have increased by 7%. This increase is attributable to the rise in energy prices,
higher energy consumption and additional treatment stages, such as softening. The spread between the
water companies decreased by a factor of 2.5 to a factor of 2.1 between 1997 and 2012. Part of the reason
for this decrease is that ‘groundwater companies’, which as a rule have low treatment costs, are faced with
deteriorating groundwater quality.
The real costs of the distribution process continue to decrease,along with the spread
This process comprises all the activities relating to the maintenance of mains and service connections.
The average operational costs of the distribution process have decreased by 43% since 1997 25) to € 12
per administrative connection (Figure 56). This decrease is related to the adoption of best practices.
Developments in automation, among other things, have increasingly allowed companies to manage their
fitters and maintenance staff more efficiently. This has resulted in a significant decrease in labour intensity
for this process. In addition, the fitters and maintenance staff have improved tools and resources at their
disposal and companies are managing assets with increasing efficiency while maintenance decisions are
more frequently linked to the real need for maintenance. It should be noted that the depreciation of
investments is not included in this comparison of just operational costs.
54
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
55
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
100 %
90 %
Share of cost sorts in the operational costs in %
Other
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
15 %
43 %
41 %
13 %
46 %
41 %
15 %
47 %
38 %
16 %
49 %
35 %
19 %
46 %
35 %
16 %
44 %
40 %
Servicesby third parties
Personnel
Figure 53
The share of services in the
operational costs by third
parties has shown a slight
downward trend since 2006.
The share of personnel
costs has increased by 5%
compared with 2009
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
100 %
90 %
Share of operating processes in the operational costs in %
General process
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
27 %
12 %
10 %
27 %
24 %
31 %
13 %
9 %
21 %
25 %
30 %
14 %
11 %
19 %
25 %
35 %
13 %
10 %
16 %
25 %
34 %
13 %
10 %
14 %
29 %
32 %
13 %
11 %
15 %
29 %
Sales process
Process-suppor-
ting process
Distribution process
Productionprocess
Figure 54
The share of the general
process has decreased
by 2 percentage points.
The share of the process-
supporting process and the
distribution process have
increased by 1 percentage
point since 2009
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
Nominal
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Development of the operational costs of the production process in € per m³ produced
0.13
0.17
0.27
0.09
0.13
0.19
Real
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
Figure 55
The average production
costs have increased by
47% since 1997 to € 0.17
per m3 of produced drinking
water. After adjusting for
inflation the costs have
increased by 7%. The
spread between the three
drinking water companies
with the lowest and highest
production costs amounts to
a factor of 2.1, which means
a decrease of 0.4 compared
with 1997
The decrease in costs identified is, incidentally, partly attributable to a change in the benchmarking
methodology. Since 2009 investments in new water meters have no longer been included as operational
costs.
This has resulted in reduced operational costs of the distribution process since that year. This effect
accounts for between 4% and 7% of the total decrease since 1997.
The costs of the process-supporting process have increased in real terms since 1997 and the spread has decreased
This process consists of managing the water -extraction and water -protection areas, controlling the water
quality and performing the statutory inspection duty on water quality in buildings.
The average costs of the process -supporting process amount to € 0.07 per m3 supplied (Figure 57). This is
an increase of 43%, or an increase of 5% after adjusting for inflation, compared with 1997. The increase in
costs has partly been caused by the statutory inspection duty on the customers’ internal water distribution
systems which the companies have been carrying out additionally since 2006. Measured against 2009,
nominal costs per m3 supplied have decreased by 17%. This has been caused by various factors, including
the increase in laboratory fees and extra laboratory analyses.
The real costs of the sales process continue to decrease, along with the spread
This process consists of all service- providing activities in which the relationship with the customer takes
centre stage.
The selling costs of an average drinking water company amount to € 11 per administrative connection
(Figure 58). In 2012, these costs are 7% higher than in 1997. However, after adjusting for inflation they
have decreased by 22%. Against 2009, nominal costs per administrative connection have decreased by 3%.
A few examples of the various initiatives launched in the sector to achieve the cost decrease in this
process include enabling customers to submit more questions via the internet, more flexible call handling
(and prediction), more efficient debt collection thanks to improved collection procedures and organising
the sales processes more efficiently. Cooperation of the companies in customer processes has also helped
improve efficiency.
56
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
57
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
1112
16
89
12
Nominal Real
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Development of the operational costs of the distribution process in € per connectionFigure 56
The average costs of the
distribution process have
decreased by 43% to € 12
per connection since 1997.
After adjusting for inflation
the costs have decreased
by 58%. In addition, the
spread in the sector has
decreased from a factor
of 2.6 to a factor of 1.5
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.04
0.05
0.08
Nominal Real
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Development of the operational costs of the process-supporting process in € per m³ supplied
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
Figure 57
The average costs of the
process-supporting process
have increased by 43% to
€ 0.07 per m3 supplied since
1997. After adjusting for
inflation the costs have
increased by 5%.
In addition, the spread in
the sector has decreased
from a factor of 3.7 to a
factor of 2.1
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
9
11
14
7
8
11
Nominal Real
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Development of the operational costs of the sales process in € per connection
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
Figure 58
The average costs of the
sales process have
increased by 7% to € 11
per connection since 1997.
After adjustment for
inflation these costs have
decreased by 22%.
In addition, the spread in
the sector has decreased
from a factor of 2.2 to a
factor of 1.6
Real costs of the general process are significantly lower and the spread has also decreased
This process consists of activities with a company -wide supporting function. These are activities such as
managing finances and staff, and developing (corporate) strategy. With effect from 2004 the costs of
reorganisation provisions (e.g. severance schemes) are allocated to this process.
On average, the costs of the general process amount to € 27 per administrative connection and have risen
by 15% since 1997 (but decreased by 16% when adjusted for inflation). Compared with 2009, costs in the
general process have decreased by 9% in 2012 (Figure 59).
58
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • FINANCE & EFFICIENCY
Lowest 3 Average Highest 3
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
23
27
37
17
20
27
Nominal Real
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Development of the operational costs of the general process in € per connectionFigure 59
The average costs of the
general process have
increased by 15% to € 27
per connection since 1997.
After adjusting for inflation
the costs have decreased
by 16% to € 20. The spread
in the sector has decreased
from a factor of 1.9 to a
factor of 1.6
59
Fin
an
ce &
Effic
ien
cy
60
Appendix A
Figure 60
Supply areas of water companies
in the Netherlands
Figure 61
Overview of the water
companies stating several
characteristics (annual averages)
in the reference year 2012
*)
Number of FTE on own payroll
that were employed for drinking
water activities in 2012 (without
deduction for absence due to
sickness and maternity).
Administrative
connections
x 1,000
Drinking water
supplied
million m3
Drinking water
revenue
million €
Number of
employees *)
FTE
1,106
610
1,024
337
772
2,547
491
279
200
538
164,928
70,783
156,783
44,676
97,779
329,743
65,143
41,569
28,093
71,474
160,118
124,543
198,538
70,806
165,629
366,585
99,229
43,839
28,737
103,438
698
467
494
274
472
1,316
441
210
136
395
■ Brabant Water
■ Dunea
■ Evides
■ Oasen
■ PWN
■ Vitens
■ Waternet
■ WBGr
■ WMD
■ WML
Supply areas and several characteristics of the water companies
61
Ap
pen
dic
es
Appendix B
Figure 62
Overview of all para-
meters included in the
WQI and in the scores
for instances of non -
compliance with standards
for the reference year
2012 based on the Water
Supply Decree
Health parameters
(acute)
Health parameters
(non-acute)
Operating
parameters
Customer-oriented
parameters
Arsenic
Boron
Bromate (90th percentile)
1.2-dichloroethane
Fluoride
Nickel
Nitrate
Nitrite
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (sum)
Pesticides (individual and sum)
Tetra and trichloroethene (sum)
Trihalomethanes (sum) (90th percentile)
Aeromonas at 30°C
Ammonium
Coliforms
Chloride
Clostridium perfringens
Saturation index
Temperature
Hydrogen carbonate
Acidity
Oxygen
Aluminium
Total hardness
Colour
Iron
Manganese
Sodium
Sulphate
Turbidity
Escherichia coli
Enterococci
Legionella
Parameters water quality
62
Appendix C
Figure 63
Costs per connection
in 1997
Figure 64
Costs per m3 in 1997
Figure 65
Costs per connection
in 2000
Total costs€ / connection
Taxes€ / connection
Costs of capital€ / connection
Depreciations€ / connection
Operational costs€ / connection
148
154
169
179
192
216
230
231
233
252
195
27
28
28
31 4 6 4
28
10
27
20
13
29
24
31
43
46
76
79
84
57
44
16
23
31
27
42
52
57
37
44
46
38
92
76
86
90
102
112
93
86
95
123
93
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
Sector
Total costs€ / m³
Taxes€ / m³
Costs of capital€ / m³
Depreciations€ / m³
Operational costs€ / m³
0.86
0.87
0.96
1.03
1.10
1.23
1.31
1.45
1.50
1.76
1.16
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.02
0.03
0.16
0.04
0.16
0.08
0.12
0.07
0.16
0.17
0.14
0.36
0.27
0.45
0.31
0.34
0.64
0.26
0.09
0.13
0.14
0.19
0.27
0.27
0.21
0.35
0.27
0.33
0.22
0.54
0.42
0.48
0.52
0.44
0.66
0.49
0.75
0.73
0.72
0.55
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
Sector
Total costs€ / connection
Taxes€ / connection
Costs of capital€ / connection
Depreciations€ / connection
Operational costs€ / connection
147
165
181
198
204
218
221
229
241
258
204
26
26
28 6
32 7
26
11 5
28
20
6
25
32
40
44
55
59
81
53
48
44
26
26
33
42
48
57
38
40
57
43
42
88
87
89
110
80
100
98
96
126
139
97Sector
Oasen
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
PWN
Overview of costs per connection and per m3 in 1997, 2000, ’03, ’06 and ’09. Drinking water companies that
have merged since 1997 have also been integrated in the figures and thereby included in the comparison.
63
Ap
pen
dic
es
WBGr 0.90
1.06
1.15
1.18
1.19
1.30
1.44
1.59
1.66
1.78
1.28
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.04
0.19
0.04
0.17
0.03
0.18
0.08
0.13
0.04
0.16
0.20
0.30
0.26
0.26
0.38
0.35
0.31
0.63
0.28
0.16
0.17
0.21
0.31
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.26
0.54
0.56
0.56
0.54
0.47
0.73
0.64
0.83
0.89
0.75
0.61
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
Sector
Total costs€ / m³
Taxes€ / m³
Costs of capital€ / m³
Depreciations€ / m³
Operational costs€ / m³
Total costs€ / connection
Taxes€ / connection
Costs of capital€ / connection
Depreciations€ / connection
Operational costs€ / connection
165
180
184
191
196
210
215
229
231
264
204
31
34
29
31 6
12
25 3 8
29
22
13
28
35
40
24
46
51
55
68
43
43
27
26
29
31
43
53
52
49
61
68
42
94
92
91
90
122
100
87
122
94
124
98Sector
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
WBGr 0.99
1.07
1.18
1.24
1.26
1.34
1.46
1.57
1.69
1.75
1.31
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.02
0.09
0.19
0.14
0.08
0.16
0.22
0.26
0.37
0.17
0.35
0.37
0.37
0.29
0.27
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.20
0.34
0.30
0.35
0.34
0.43
0.45
0.27
0.57
0.54
0.58
0.58
0.51
0.83
0.59
0.84
0.81
0.82
0.63
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
Sector
Total costs€ / m³
Taxes€ / m³
Costs of capital€ / m³
Depreciations€ / m³
Operational costs€ / m³
Figure 66
Costs per m3 in 2000
Figure 67
Costs per connection
in 2003
Figure 68
Costs per m3 in 2003
64
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • APPENDIX C
Total costs€ / connection
Taxes€ / connection
Costs of capital€ / connection
Depreciations€ / connection
Operational costs€ / connection
167
178
187
187
208
211
213
219
219
245
200
29
34
29
31 6
24
19 4
10
28
23
11
33
32
34
21
61
49
33
87
32
42
20
27
31
33
47
40
49
50
47
67
39
107
83
95
89
134
86
95
132
76
118
96Sector
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
Total costs€ / m³
Taxes€ / m³
Costs of capital€ / m³
Depreciations€ / m³
Operational costs€ / m³
1.06
1.10
1.23
1.26
1.31
1.48
1.49
1.54
1.68
1.72
1.34
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.06
0.22
0.04
0.17
0.03
0.19
0.15
0.15
0.07
0.21
0.21
0.50
0.24
0.15
0.43
0.23
0.22
0.40
0.28
0.13
0.16
0.21
0.27
0.23
0.34
0.28
0.35
0.46
0.40
0.26
0.68
0.51
0.63
0.44
0.62
0.96
0.61
0.93
0.81
0.77
0.65Sector
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
PWN
173
179
180
183
194
196
203
204
207
222
191
28
31
34
29
23 8 6
18 4
29
22
16
35 6
25 2
36
24
22
26
14
24
17
35
21
30
47
54
51
56
48
45
40
111
79
119
99
122
99
122
108
129
134
104Sector
Oasen
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
PWN
Total costs€ / connection
Taxes€ / connection
Costs of capital€ / connection
Depreciations€ / connection
Operational costs€ / connection
Figure 69
Costs per connection
in 2006
Figure 70
Costs per m3 in 2006
Figure 71
Costs per connection
in 2009
65
Ap
pen
dic
es
Note (Figure 71 left):
Note: In 2009, Brabant Water set aside a provision for the removal of distribution mains. Without this provision, the costs of capital and
operational costs would amount to € 40 and € 85 per connection respectively. WML set aside a provision for a reorganisation in 2009.
Without this provision, the costs of capital and operational costs would amount to € 17 and € 107 per connection respectively
1.12
1.16
1.17
1.28
1.28
1.44
1.52
1.57
1.58
1.76
1.33
0.05
0.19
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.17
0.05
0.21
0.03
0.15
0.16
0.20
0.11
0.04
0.17
0.25
0.02
0.18
0.10
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.31
0.12
0.14
0.21
0.25
0.35
0.38
0.32
0.36
0.48
0.28
0.56
0.74
0.77
0.70
0.56
0.90
0.91
0.95
0.98
0.94
0.73Sector
Oasen
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Evides
Waternet
Dunea
PWN
Total costs€ / m³
Taxes€ / m³
Costs of capital€ / m³
Depreciations€ / m³
Operational costs € / m³
Note (Figure 72 top):
Note: In 2009, Brabant Water set aside a provision for the removal of distribution mains. Without this provision, the costs of capital
would amount to € 0.26 per m3 and the operational costs € 0.55 per m3. WML set aside a provision for a reorganisation in 2009.
Without this provision, the costs of capital would amount to € 0.13 per m3 and the operational costs € 0.80 per m3
Figure 72
Costs per m3 in 2009
1.051.06
1.101.101.101.101.101.11
1.231.27
1.481.48
1.551.561.581.581.59
1.621.661.67
1.711.791.801.821.821.851.851.891.91
1.972.00
2.082.45
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Overview of the integral drinking water tariffs in 2012 which the water companies apply in the different
tariff areas. Here, the term ‘integral tariff’ means that fixed components (such as the standing charge)
together with the variable tariff are factored into a tariff per cubic metre. These tariffs are shown on
the basis of five standard consumer categories in terms of annual drinking water consumption and
throughput capacity of the water meter.
66
Appendix D
Figure 73 • Integral drinking water tariff consumer category of a single-person household (consumption 50 m3/year), in €/m3
Figure 74 • Integral drinking water tariff consumer category of a household (consumption 105 m3/year), in €/m3
*) Nieuwkoop, etc. means: Nieuwveen, Noorden, Ter Aar, Vrouwenakker, Woerdens Verlaat, Zegveld, Zevenhoven
1.411.411.411.411.411.44
1.591.83
1.861.89
2.102.112.11
2.262.27
2.312.332.34
2.392.40
2.442.59
2.612.63
2.672.712.712.71
2.812.852.89
2.973.26
0.00
Vitens - FlevolandVitens - Midden Nederland
Vitens - GelderlandVitens - OverijsselVitens - Friesland
WBGr - Supply areaWMD
Brabant WaterEvides - Brabantse Wal
WBGr - DelfzijlWaternet
Evides - Zeeland incl. Goeree-Overflakee Evides - Zuid Holland excl. Goeree-Overflakee
PWNEvides - Rotterdam (with Precario)Evides - Schiedam (with Precario)
Evides - Vlaardingen (with Precario)Dunea - Leidschendam-Voorburg
Oasen - OtherEvides - Maassluis (with Precario)
WMLDunea - Den Haag
Oasen - Hazerswoude, Koudekerk a/d RijnOasen - Nieuwkoop, etc. *)
Dunea - OegstgeestOasen - Leiderdorp
Dunea - KatwijkDunea - Pijnacker-Nootdorp
Oasen - AlblasserdamDunea - Leiden
Oasen - Hoogmade, LeimuidenDunea - Noordwijkerhout
Oasen - Zoeterwoude
WMDWBGr - Supply area
Vitens - FlevolandVitens - Midden Nederland
Vitens - GelderlandVitens - OverijsselVitens - Friesland
Brabant WaterEvides - Brabantse Wal
WBGr - DelfzijlEvides - Zeeland incl. Goeree-Overflakee
Evides - Zuid Holland excl. Goeree-OverflakeeWML
Evides - Rotterdam (with Precario)Oasen - Other
Evides - Schiedam (with Precario)Evides - Vlaardingen (with Precario)
Evides - Maassluis (with Precario)Waternet
Dunea - Leidschendam-VoorburgPWN
Dunea - Den HaagOasen - Hazerswoude, Koudekerk a/d Rijn
Oasen - Nieuwkoop, etc. *) Dunea - Oegstgeest
Dunea - KatwijkDunea - Pijnacker-Nootdorp
Oasen - LeiderdorpDunea - Leiden
Dunea - NoordwijkerhoutOasen - Alblasserdam
Oasen - Hoogmade, LeimuidenOasen - Zoeterwoude
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
67
Ap
pen
dic
es
Figure 75 • Integral drinking water tariff consumer category of a household (consumption 130 m3/year), in €/m3
Figure 76 • Integral drinking water tariff consumer category of a small business user (consumption 1,300 m3/year, water meter capacity 3 m3/hour), in €/m3
*) Nieuwkoop, etc. means: Nieuwveen, Noorden, Ter Aar, Vrouwenakker, Woerdens Verlaat, Zegveld, Zevenhoven
0.500.70
0.770.780.800.800.800.800.800.82
0.890.89
0.980.980.990.990.990.99
1.111.14
1.201.211.211.211.211.211.211.22
1.291.31
1.361.39
1.77
0.950.980.99
1.041.041.041.041.04
1.121.17
1.371.371.39
1.431.431.451.46
1.491.55
1.581.621.651.661.681.681.691.70
1.751.75
1.801.86
1.942.31
WMDBrabant Water
WBGr - Supply areaVitens - Flevoland
Vitens - Midden NederlandVitens - Gelderland
Vitens - OverijsselVitens - Friesland
Evides - Brabantse WalWBGr - Delfzijl
Evides - Zeeland incl. Goeree-Overflakee Evides - Zuid Holland excl. Goeree-Overflakee
WMLOasen - Other
Evides - Rotterdam (with Precario)Evides - Schiedam (with Precario)
Evides - Vlaardingen (with Precario)Evides - Maassluis (with Precario)
Dunea - Leidschendam-VoorburgWaternet
PWNDunea - Den Haag
Oasen - Hazerswoude, Koudekerk a/d RijnDunea - Oegstgeest
Oasen - Nieuwkoop, etc. *) Dunea - Katwijk
Dunea - Pijnacker-NootdorpDunea - Leiden
Oasen - LeiderdorpDunea - Noordwijkerhout
Oasen - Alblasserdam Oasen - Hoogmade, Leimuiden
Oasen - Zoeterwoude
Brabant WaterEvides - Brabantse Wal
WBGr - Supply areaWBGr - Delfzijl
Vitens - FlevolandVitens - Midden Nederland
Vitens - GelderlandVitens - OverijsselVitens - Friesland
WMLOasen - Other
WMDEvides - Zeeland incl. Goeree-Overflakee
Evides - Zuid Holland excl. Goeree-OverflakeeEvides - Rotterdam (with Precario)Evides - Schiedam (with Precario)
Evides - Vlaardingen (with Precario)Evides - Maassluis (with Precario)
Oasen - Hazerswoude, Koudekerk a/d RijnOasen - Nieuwkoop, etc. *)
Dunea - Leidschendam-VoorburgDunea - Den Haag
Oasen - LeiderdorpDunea - Oegstgeest
Dunea - KatwijkDunea - Pijnacker-Nootdorp
Dunea - LeidenDunea - Noordwijkerhout
WaternetOasen - Alblasserdam
PWNOasen - Hoogmade, Leimuiden
Oasen - Zoeterwoude
0.570.58
0.640.660.660.660.66
0.720.72
0.800.84
0.890.970.970.970.970.97
1.061.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.091.10
1.161.261.26
1.301.34
1.72
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Brabant WaterVitens - Midden Nederland
Evides - Brabantse WalVitens - Flevoland
Vitens - GelderlandVitens - OverijsselVitens - Friesland
WBGr - DelfzijlWBGr - Supply area
WMLOasen - Other
WMDEvides - Zuid Holland excl. Goeree-Overflakee
Evides - Rotterdam (with Precario)Evides - Schiedam (with Precario)
Evides - Vlaardingen (with Precario)Evides - Maassluis (with Precario)
Oasen - Hazerswoude, Koudekerk a/d RijnDunea - Leidschendam-Voorburg
Dunea - Den HaagDunea - Oegstgeest
Dunea - KatwijkDunea - Pijnacker-Nootdorp
Dunea - LeidenDunea - Noordwijkerhout
Oasen - Nieuwkoop, etc. *) Evides - Zeeland incl. Goeree-Overflakee
Oasen - LeiderdorpWaternet
Oasen - Alblasserdam PWN
Oasen - Hoogmade, LeimuidenOasen - Zoeterwoude
68
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • APPENDIX D
Figure 77 • Integral drinking water tariff consumer category of a business user (consumption 10,000 m3/year, water meter capacity 5 m3/hour), in €/m3
Figure 78 • Integral drinking water tariff consumer category of a large business user (consumption 25,000 m3/year, water meter capacity 10 m3/uur), in €/m3
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Brabant WaterVitens - Midden Nederland
Vitens - FlevolandVitens - Gelderland
Vitens - OverijsselVitens - Friesland
Evides - Brabantse WalWBGr - Supply area
WBGr - DelfzijlWMLWMD
Oasen - OtherEvides - Zuid Holland excl. Goeree-Overflakee
Evides - Rotterdam (with Precario)Evides - Schiedam (with Precario)
Evides - Vlaardingen (with Precario)Evides - Maassluis (with Precario)
Dunea - Leidschendam-VoorburgDunea - Den Haag
Dunea - OegstgeestDunea - Katwijk
Dunea - Pijnacker-NootdorpDunea - Leiden
Dunea - NoordwijkerhoutOasen - Hazerswoude, Koudekerk a/d RijnEvides - Zeeland incl. Goeree-Overflakee
Oasen - Nieuwkoop, etc. *) Oasen - Leiderdorp
PWNWaternet
Oasen - AlblasserdamOasen - Hoogmade, Leimuiden
Oasen - Zoeterwoude
0.460.630.650.650.650.650.67
0.720.73
0.790.890.92
1.091.101.101.101.101.101.101.101.101.101.101.10
1.141.151.16
1.231.261.27
1.341.42
1.79
*) Nieuwkoop, etc. means: Nieuwveen, Noorden, Ter Aar, Vrouwenakker, Woerdens Verlaat, Zegveld, Zevenhoven
69
Ap
pen
dic
es
Figure 80
Explanatory factor
consumption per
connection: Companies
with lower average
consumption per
connection as a rule
incur higher operational
costs per connection.
Average consumption
has decreased by 20%
since 1997
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Evides
Brabant Water
WBGr
WMD
WML
Waternet
Oasen
Vitens
PWN
Dunea
Sector 1997
Sector 2000
Sector 2003
Sector 2006
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
Average consumption per connection in m³ per year
153
149
149
141
135
133
132
129
127
116
169
160
156
148
144
135
Appendix E
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
WMD
Vitens
Brabant Water
WBGr
WML
Oasen
Evides
PWN
Waternet
Dunea
Sector 1997
Sector 2000
Sector 2003
Sector 2006
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
Groundwater company
Groundwater company
Groundwater company
Groundwater company
Surface water company
Surface water company
Surface water company
Surface water company
Groundwater
Natural dune water
Bank-infiltratedgroundwater
Surface water
Percentage of water extracted and purchased, broken down according to type
Mixed company
Mixed company
Figure 79 • Explanatory factor production type: Surface water companies have higher operational costs
Overview of explanatory factors for the cost categories.
70
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • APPENDIX E
Figure 81
Explanatory factor network
complexity: Companies with
higher network complexity
as a rule incur higher
operational costs
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Waternet
Dunea
Oasen
Evides
PWN
WML
Brabant Water
WBGr
Vitens
WMD
Sector 1997
Sector 2000
Sector 2003
Sector 2006
Sector 2009
Sector 2012
Network complexity (number of administrative connections per kilometre of distribution mains)
158
132
83
78
77
62
61
55
54
39
66
65
65
66
65
66
71
Ap
pen
dic
es
1. In 2006 the Dehydration Taskforce issued an advisory report on the best way to address
dehydration. The recommendations included concentrating on the TOP areas (the most severely
dehydrated areas) and better cooperation by the parties concerned. These recommendations were
broadly supported by the water companies. In recent years, water companies have been involved in
combating dehydration in various TOP areas. Covenants have been agreed with the parties involved,
such as the provinces, municipalities and the nature conservation movement, and several anti -
dehydration measures are an outcome of these covenants.
2. ‘Other water’ is understood to mean: water that is not of drinking water quality. This may be
partially treated water (for instance, pre-treated surface water) or water that has been optimised to
the needs of the business market (for instance, distilled and demineralised water).
3. Revenues from non- drinking water activities come from activities such as the supply of other water,
laboratory activities on behalf of third parties, invoicing for third parties, management of nature and
recreational areas, subsidies, incidental income, wholesale supplies to other water companies,
capitalised operating expenses and contributions by third parties to the operating costs of
infrastructural works. Activities which are carried out by separate BVs (private limited liability
companies) of water companies are not included in the Benchmark either.
4. The international benchmark of the European Benchmarking Cooperation (EBC) compares both
drinking water and wastewater treatment. All Dutch drinking water companies and more than 30
international companies take part in the international benchmark.
5. A technical connection is a service connection of a building on a water company’s mains water
network. An administrative connection is a usage address (or apartment or plot) linked to the
technical connection. A collective (technical) connection, such as a block of flats connected to the
water network, has several administrative connections.
6. Where water companies have merged since 1997, the data have been aggregated by calculating
the weighted averages. The following water companies have merged since 1997: Waterbedrijf
Groningen was created in 1998 from the merger of Groningen’s provincial and municipal water
companies. Vitens was created in 2002 from NUON Water Gelderland, NUON Water Fryslân,
Waterbedrijf Gelderland and Waterleiding Maatschappij Overijssel, joined in 2006 by Hydron
Flevoland and Hydron Midden -Nederland. Brabant Water was created in 2002 from the merger
between Waterleiding Maatschappij Noord -West Brabant and Waterleiding Maatschappij Oost -
Brabant. Brabant Water also took over Tilburgsche Waterleiding Maatschappij in 2007. In 2004
Delta and Waterbedrijf Europoort merged to form Evides.
7. The WQIs are calculated on the basis of the standards of the Drinking Water Decree wherever
possible. In some cases they are deviated from, for example in the case of microbiological
parameters with a standard of 0. These are based on the figure of 0.3 (division by 0 is not possible).
72
Notes
73
No
tes
Further information about the standards used for the WQIs can be found in the Benchmark Protocol
2012 (table on page 28). Contrary to the Protocol, hardness is based on a standard between 0.0 and
2.5, in combination with a bandwidth for optimum water of between 1 and 1.5. Determining the
number of instances of non-compliance with standards is always based on the legal requirements
set out in the Drinking Water Decree.
8. Where standards are exceeded structurally, the regulator can issue the water company with an
exemption. An exemption can only be issued if it will not constitute a danger to public health and if
it is not possible to reasonably continue supplying water in the area in question by another method.
The Benchmark does not, however, take exemptions into account in connection with comparability
between water companies and the customer’s interest. This means that measurements taken during
the exemption period are included in the calculations.
9. The saturation index parameter shows the ratio of chalk to carbon dioxide in water. If water has a
saturation index of less than ‘0’, the water will have a chalk- extracting effect. A saturation index of
more than ‘0’ means that the water will be scale -forming. The saturation index is known as the
verzadigingsindex in Dutch.
10. Based on the household water tariff and the price of various brands of mineral water from the
supermarket.
11. The distribution measurements are carried out on drinking water samples at the tap of the
customer. So-called flushed samples are taken at the tap. To this end, the tap is opened for a certain
time before taking the sample, so the water from the interior installation is removed. Only then is
the sample taken for analysis at the laboratory. As a result, the water concerned is water from the
distribution network, although it may still contain traces of the interior installation. The samples for
the metals nickel, copper and lead are taken without flushing out the interior installation.
12. The reference sectors used were: a national postal company, a national supermarket chain, the
respondent’s electricity company, the municipality where the respondent lives and a national public
transport company.
13. Since 2009, the survey is largely carried out in writing. Only where there were not enough
responses (meter replacement, maintenance, assistance during disruptions and moving house)
additional telephone surveys have been performed with customer addresses provided by the water
companies. In 2006 all surveys were performed on the basis of addresses supplied by the water
companies. The ratings in Figure 21 are based on 1,418 evaluations for assistance during
disruptions, 1,447 for maintenance, 1,620 for moving house, 1,819 for meter replacements, 6,500 for
meter readings and 6,336 for billing. In addition, the questions in 2006 for each activity consisted of
a number of sub-questions which were subsequently converted into a rating. Since 2009,
respondents are asked directly for a rating for each activity.
14. A total of nearly 12,000 customers were surveyed. TNS surveyed an average random sample of 710
respondents per company. This produced the general rating for the service, the ratings per contact
form, the rating for meter readings and the rating for billing. As regards the other activities (meter
replacement, maintenance, assistance during disruptions and moving house) the TNS NIPO asked
the 710 respondents whether they had recently had any contact with the water company. If so, they
were asked how satisfied they were with that customer process. To achieve the required sample
size (125 per company per activity), another 4,818 customer addresses supplied by the water
companies were surveyed by telephone in relation to these other processes. Therefore, besides the
7,100 written respondents, an additional 4,818 customers took part in the survey by telephone.
15. On average the sample size was 585 per company. To avoid the effect of incidents as much as
possible and to produce as representative a picture as possible, Ipsos spread the sample
throughout the whole of 2012. The survey was performed from 4 January up to and including 21
December 2012, and all calls were made on weekdays between 09:00 and 17:00. At Oasen, calls
were made up to 16:30.
16. The participants in the TNS NIPO written survey were asked whether they had had contact with the
water company over the past three months, and if so, what form the last contact took and what
rating they would give for it. The ratings in figure 22 are based on 78 assessments for personal
contact, 365 for telephone contact, 716 for contact via the website, 580 for contact by e mail and 594
for contact by letter.
17. From: ‘Reliability of Electricity networks in the Netherlands 2012 (Betrouwbaarheid van
elektriciteitsnetten in Nederland 2012)’
18. From: ‘Gas distribution network disruption report 2012 (Storingsrapportage gasdistributienetten
2012)’
19. Staatsbosbeheer Annual report 2012
20. Natuurmonumenten Annual report 2012
21. The figures for the household budget relate to 2010, as these are the most recent data. The budget
for water relates only to tap water. Mineral water is classified under foods in the classification
applied by CBS Statistics Netherlands.
22. This tariff for an average household is determined by dividing the turnover of the residential market
in 2012 by the sale to the residential market in 2012. The other tariffs shown are calculated based on
the tariff arrangements applied by the companies.
23. A ‘groundwater company’ uses at least 85% groundwater; a ‘surface water company’ uses at least
85% surface water. The other water companies are categorised as ‘mixed companies’.
74
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • NOTES
75
No
tes
24. Operational costs are made comparable prior to allocation to the processes. This is realised as
follows: capitalised costs for office automation and operational IT maintenance are added to the
operational costs. Purchasing costs of treated water are not benchmarked at the process level. Only
50% (the operational cost portion) of purchasing costs of raw water are allocated to processes. In
addition, the portion of the rental and lease amounts intended for compensating the costs of capital
(the non- operational portion) is also eliminated from the total operational costs. This eliminates
the effect of whether or not certain assets are company- owned. Further non- recurrent accounting -
related costs (such as those resulting from changes in accounting standards) are disregarded in the
Benchmark.
25. The process model for distribution was refined after 1997. The figures for 1997 have been estimated
to make the figures for the six years comparable.
For more information, please contact:
Vewin
Association of Dutch water companies
Bezuidenhoutseweg 12
2594 AV Den Haag
P.O. Box 90611
2509 LP Den Haag
ing. P.J.J.G. Geudens
Tel. +31 (0) 70 3490 886
www.vewin.nl
Accenture
drs. M.J.J. van Beek
Gustav Mahlerplein 90
1082 MA Amsterdam
www.accenture.com
Photo’s
Shutterstock (cover)
PWN (33)
Dunea (59)
Waterbedrijf Groningen (71)
Design and pre-press
[email protected] • Den Haag
Printed by
Quantes
Vewin nr. 2013 / 119 / 6281
REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE 2012 • COLOPHON