Alliance to Save Energy1200 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036

(202) 857-0666 fax: (202) 331-9588 email: info@ase.org Website: www.ase.org

Watergy

Wate

rgy

Takin

g A

dvan

tag

e o

f Un

tap

ped

En

erg

y a

nd

Wate

r Efficie

ncy

Op

po

rtun

ities in

Mu

nicip

al W

ate

r Syste

ms

Taking Advantage of Untapped Energy

and Water Efficiency Opportunities

in Municipal Water Systems

iWatergyTaking Advantage of Untapped Energy

and Water Efficiency Opportunities

in Municipal Water Systems

Third Decade of Leadership

ii

The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, government, environmen-tal, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient and clean use of energy worldwideto benefit consumers, the environment, the economy, and national security.

The Alliance International Program is helping to save energy around the world, workingon five continents. The International Team boasts activities in over 25 countries with nearly30 staff located in seven countries. Its programmatic work falls into six areas: Education andOutreach, NGO Development and Capacity Building, Energy Efficient Industry Partnerships,Policy Reform, Sustainable Cities Initiative, and the Municipal Water Efficiency Program.

The Alliances Sustainable Cities Initiative and Municipal Water Pumping Efficiencyprograms, which provide the context for this document, focus on capacity developmentat the municipal level and creating critical links among the public, private, and non-governmental organization (NGO) sectors. The efforts under way engage each of thesesectors by touting the multiple benefits of energy efficiency. By helping these sectors findcommon cause through energy efficiency, the Alliance mobilizes community-wide activityto improve the environment, reduce electricity use and costs, and improve provision ofcritical water and energy services in municipalities.

The Alliance is currently chaired by United States Senator Byron L. Dorgan and co-chaired by Dean T. Langford, former president of OSRAM Sylvania. United States SenatorJames M. Jeffords, United States Senator Jeff Bingaman, and United States RepresentativeEdward J. Markey are vice chairs. David M. Nemtzow is the President.

Copyright 2002 Alliance to Save Energy

This publication was made possible through support provided to the Alliance to SaveEnergy by the Office of Energy, Environment, and Technology in the Economic Growth,Agriculture, and Trade Bureau of USAID, under the terms of Cooperative AgreementNumber LAG-A-00-97-00006-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID.

Cover photo: E. David Luria Photography

For more information contact:Alliance to Save Energy1200 18th St. NWSuite 900Washington, DC 20036(+1 202) 857-0666Fax (+1 202) 331-9588E-mail: info@ase.orgWebsite: www.ase.org

Third Decade of Leadership

Printed on 20% post-consumerwaste recycled paper

iii

Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Conversions for Units of Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.1 The Link between Energy and Water: Watergy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2 The Case for Watergy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Water Management Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.1 The Ad Hoc Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2 Single Manager Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.3 The Watergy Efficiency Team Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Crafting a Watergy Efficiency Team Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.1 The Goal of a Watergy Efficiency Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.2 The Formation of a Watergy Efficiency Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.3 Tools and Resources of a Watergy Management Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4. Building Institutional Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.1 Watergy Metering and Monitoring System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.2 Baselines and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.3 Facility Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5. Supply-Side Improvement Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295.1 Introduction to Supply-Side Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295.2 Maintenance and Operational Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295.3 System Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.4 Municipal Wastewater TreatmentSpecific Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375.5 Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6. Demand-Side Improvement Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476.2 Demand-Side Technologies: Residential and Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496.3 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536.4 Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546.5 Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Watergy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Demand-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Case Study Compendium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61I. Austin, United States: Watergy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62II. Stockholm, Sweden: Watergy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65III. Sydney, Australia: Watergy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67IV. Toronto, Canada: Watergy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70V. Medelln, Colombia: Demand-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

VI. Johannesburg, South Africa: Demand-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76VII. San Diego, United States: Demand-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Watergy

iv

VIII. Singapore: Demand-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80IX. Accra, Ghana: Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83X. Ahmedabad, India: Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85XI. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87XII. Columbus, United States: Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89XIII. Fairfield, United States: Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91XIV. Fortaleza, Brazil: Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93XV. Indore, India: Supply-Side Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

XVI. Lviv, Ukraine: Supply-Side Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98XVII. Pune, India: Supply-Side Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Appendix A: Water Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Appendix B: Resources for Audits and Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Appendix C: Data Analysis: Key Players and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Appendix D: Additional Resources for Equipment Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Appendix E: DSM/Policy Options and Other Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Appendix F: Sample Watergy Fact Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Index of Major Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Description of Watergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 1: Watergy Efficiency Management Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 2: Expected Benefits from Watergy Efficiency Management Approach Based on CEMP Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 3: Human Resources Required for Watergy Efficiency Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 4: Watergy Efficiency Performance Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 5: Typical Metrics for Tracking Watergy Efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 2: Water Accounting System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 6: Water-Saving Devices for Existing Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 7: Water-Saving Devices for New Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 8: Most Common Efficiency Measures by Business and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Table 9: Air Pollution Produced per 1,000 Gallons (3,785 Liters) Treated in Austin, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 3: Empresas Pblicas de Medelln Average Residential Consumption Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

vPreface

The Alliance to Save Energy is pleased to publish Watergy: Taking Advantage of UntappedEnergy and Water Efficiency Opportunities in Municipal Water Systems. This document isthe result of a yearlong effort that has sought to draw on the experience of municipalwater utilities around the world. It highlights the innovative ways water utilities arereducing their energy use at the same time that they are being asked to increase andimprove service.

The recommendations contained within this document offer a new perspective on therelationship between water and energy. By linking the management of water and energyresources, water utilities have the potential to increase the efficiency in which these twocritical resources are employed. The potential benefits to individuals around the worldfrom improving the management of water and energy resources range from cleaner air toimproved economic opportunity to better utility service for lower costs.

It is our hope that this document will attract the attention of decision makers chargedwith the management of water resources in many parts of the world, as well as here athome. We certainly look forward to future examples of watergy efficiency innovationsthat this work may inspire and that may lead us all toward a more efficient, productive,and sustainable world.

Honorable Byron L. Dorgan Dean T. LangfordChair Co-Chair

The Alliance to Save Energy gratefullyacknowledges the efforts of all those whoplayed a part during the many stages ofthis documents development. Many indi-viduals made valuable contributions to thefinal product during the initial conceptualphases, development of the case studies, aswell as in the final review process.

The U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment (USAID) provided financial supportfor this project. Griffin Thompson, Ph.D.,Director of USAIDs Office of Energy, Envi-ronment, and Technology in the EconomicGrowth, Agriculture, and Trade Bureau,Sharon Murray, Ph.D., Regina Ostergaard-Klem, Ph.D., and Robert MacLeod supporteddevelopment of the concept and gave feed-back at various stages in the writing process.

Additional support for this documentwas provided by the more than 70 Allianceto Save Energy Associatescorporations andbusiness trade associations working togetherthrough the Alliance to promote greaterinvestment in cost-effective energy efficiency.

Those taking part in the review processmade equally important observations onthis works relevance, both in the developedand developing world context. Reviewersincluded Linda Reekie (Awwa ResearchFoundation), Mary Louise Vitelli (AdvancedEngineering Associates International[AEAI]), Dr. Allan R. Hoffman (Office ofPower Technologies, United States Depart-ment of Energy), Professor EduardoPacheco Jordo (School of Engineering,Federal University of Rio de Janeiro[UFRJ]), Jimmy Ng (New York State EnergyResearch and Development Authority[NYSERDA]), Cliff Arnett (Columbus WaterWorks), Sandeep Tandon (USAID/India),S. Padmanaban (USAID/India), CaptainVon Millard (U.S.-Asia EnvironmentalPartnership/India), Carol Mulholland(Academy for Educational Development),Amit Bando (Chemonics), Dr. AhmadGhamarian (Institute of InternationalEducation), and Carl Duisberg (Nexant).

An important part of this work includesthe case study compendium, which dis-cusses actual water and energy efficiency

projects in depth. Alliance staff workedclosely with many of the following individ-uals to document these projects. Thosecontributing to this section included BillHoffman (City of Austin Water andWastewater Utility); Berndt Bjrlenius(Stockholm Water Company); John Petre(Sydney Water Corporation); Joe Boccia,Roman Kaszczij, Leonard Lipp, and TracyKorovesi (Toronto Water Utility); JuanCarlos Herrera Arciniegas (EmpresasPblicas de Medelln); Karin Louwrens,Grant Pearson (Rand Water, South Africa);Michael Scahill and Jesse Pagliaro (SanDiego Metropolitan Wastewater Depart-ment); Ng Han Tong (Public UtilitiesBoard, Singapore); Ramesh Juvekar (PrimaTechno Commercial Services, India);Dr. A. K. Ofosu-Ahenkorah (Ghana EnergyFoundation); Jeff Broome (Bulawayo CityCouncil); Cliff Arnett (Columbus WaterWorks); Drew Young (Fairfield WastewaterTreatment Facility); Edinardo Rodriguesand Renato Rolim (Companhia de gua eEsgoto do Cear [CAGECE]); Mayor KailasVijaywargiya, Commissioner SanjayShukla, and R. K. Singh Kushwah (IndoreMunicipal Corporation); Kris Buros (CH2MHill/Lviv, Ukraine, Vodokanal project); andAshok Deshpande (Pune MunicipalCorporation).

Alliance to Save Energy President DavidNemtzow and Vice-President Mark Hopkinsboth provided direction and technical inputinto this document. Leslie Black-Cordes,Sachu Constantine, and Joe Loper of theAlliance also contributed significantly toconcept development, as well as providedfeedback at different stages during thewriting process. Other Alliance staff thatcontributed in many different ways to thedevelopment of this work include LauraLind, David Jaber, James Termin, SwarupaGanguli, Estelle Bessac, and MadhuSundararaman.

Pamela S. Cubberly, Cubberly &Associates, provided editorial assistance.EEI Communications provided designand layout support.

vii

Acknowledgments

Kevin JamesMr. James, Senior Program Manager forthe Alliance to Save Energy, works to buildthe capacity within municipalities, utilities,and industries to recognize and take ad-vantage of energy efficiency opportunities.He manages the Alliances SustainableCities and the Municipal Water EfficiencyPrograms. Mr. James has authored severalreports and articles covering among othertopicstracking energy use and air emis-sions and outlining efficiency opportunitiesin the industrial sector. He holds a mastersdegree in Public and International Affairsfrom the University of Pittsburgh and abachelors degree in political science fromBates College in Lewiston, Maine.

Stephanie L. CampbellMs. Campbell, Senior Program Associatefor International Programs, has threeyears of experience in the research, promo-tion, and development of energy efficiencyprojects. Ms. Campbell helps manage theMunicipal Water Efficiency Program activi-ties in Brazil. Ms. Campbell also acts as theLatin America Regional Coordinator forthe Collaborative Labeling and ApplianceStandards Program (CLASP), a global ini-tiative designed to expand the implementa-tion of energy efficiency standards andlabels. Her activities focus on institutionalcapacity building initiatives, coordinationof regional workshops, and preparation ofpolicy and regulatory guidance. She joinedthe Alliance after completing her mastersdegree in Environmental Management atYale University.

Christopher E. GodloveMr. Godlove, Program Associate forInternational Programs, has over five yearsof experience developing internationalenergy and environment activities. At theAlliance Mr. Godlove supports the Sus-tainable Cities programs in India andBrazil, working with water utility partnersto improve the water and energy efficiencyof their operations. Prior to joining theAlliance Mr. Godlove managed environ-mental training initiatives with the U.S.Environmental Training Institute (USETI),working in Central and Eastern Europe,Asia, and Latin America. This workfocused on the development of USAID,USDOC, and USEPA public-private part-nership activities addressing environmentalchallenges globally. Mr. Godlove holds amasters degree in Latin American Studiesfrom American University, and a bachelorsdegree in Spanish Literature fromWashington University in Saint Louis.

viii

Authors

ix

Foreword

The initial concept for this report devel-oped around the Alliances work withmunicipal water utilities in India andBrazil. The Alliance was originally drawnto the municipal water sector in these twocountries because of the tremendouspotential for energy savings. The signifi-cant results and lessons learned throughthis work provide the impetus and thefoundation for this report.

As part of its ongoing programs in Indiaand Brazil, the Alliance began to researchthe experiences of other municipalitiesaround the world. The goal of this effortwas to identify best practices promotingenergy and water efficiency. It became clearthat the same opportunities for energy andwater efficiency in India and Brazil werecommon not only in other developingcountries, but also in countries in transi-tion and the developed world.

As the Alliance researched success sto-ries to share with municipalities in Indiaand Brazil, it became apparent that firstand foremost the key to success of each

effort was good management. An examina-tion of all the commonalities among man-agement structures of water and energyefficiency programs provided the founda-tion for the concepts in this report.

The Alliance to Save Energy in its mis-sion to save energy around the world hasfound the energy intensive municipal watersector to be fertile ground for sowing theseeds of energy efficiency. This report, aspart of the Alliances comprehensive effortto propagate energy efficiency, seeks to:

Advocate for improving municipalwater utility management structures tofacilitate energy efficiency actions;

Educate municipalities and the globalcommunity on the potential benefits ofsaving water and energy in water utili-ties and methods to accomplish thisaim; and

Solicit thoughts and ideas from a wideraudience on how best to take advantageof the opportunity for energy savings inmunicipal water utilities.

xAMC Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

ASD adjustable speed drive

CAGECE Companhia de gua e Esgoto do Cear

CEMP corporate energy management program

CII Confederation of Indian Industry

EEPPM Empresas Pblicas de Medelln

EMC energy management cell

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ESCO energy service company

gpcd gallons per capita per day

GWC Ghana Water Company

IAMU Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities

IMC Indore Municipal Corporation

kgf/cm2 kilogram-force per square centimeter

kVA one thousand volt-amps

kVAR one thousand volt-amps reactive power

kW kilowatt

KWh kilowatt-hour

MWWD Metropolitan Wastewater Management Department

NAESCO National Association of Energy Service Companies

NGO nongovernmental organization

NSW New South Wales

O&M operation and maintenance

PID proportional, integral, derivative

PMC Pune Municipal Corporation

PSAT Pumping System Assessment Tool

PSI pounds per square inch

PUB Public Utilities Board

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SEWA Self-Employed Womens Association

UFW unaccounted-for water

USAID United States Agency for International Development

UV ultraviolet

VFD variable frequency drive

Abbreviations

xi

1 inch (in) = 2.54 centimeters (cm) = 25.4 millimeters (mm)

1 foot (ft) = 30.5 centimeters (cm) = 0.305 meters (m)

1 yard (yd) = 36 inches (in) = 0.914 meters (m)

1 mile (mi) = 5,280 feet (ft) = 1.61 kilometers (km)

1 square yard (yd2) = 9 square feet (ft2) = 0.836 square meters (m2)

1 acre (ac) = 43,560 square feet (ft2) = 0.405 hectares (ha) = 4,050 square meters (m2)

1 square mile (mi2) = 640 acres (ac) = 259 hectares (ha)

1 cubic foot (ft3) = 7.48 gallons (gal) = 28.3 liters (l)

1 cubic yard (yd3) = 27 cubic feet (ft3) = 202 gallons (gal) = 0.765 cubic meters (m3)

1 gallon (gal) = 0.137 cubic feet (ft3) = 8.33 pounds (lbs) water = 3.78 liters (l)

1 acre-inch (ac-in) = 3,630 cubic feet (ft3) = 27,154 gallons (gal) = 102.8 cubic meters (m3)

1 acre-foot (ac-ft) = 43,560 cubic feet (ft3) = 325,851 gallons (gal) = 1,234 cubic meters (m3)

1 pound (lb) = 454 grams (g) = 0.454 kilograms (kg)

1 ton (ton) = 2,000 pounds (lbs) = 907 kilograms (kg) = 0.907 megagrams (Mg)

1 pound per acre (lb/ac) = 1.12 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha)

1 cubic foot per second (cfs) = 449 gallons per minute (gpm) = 28.32 liters per second (l/s)

1 million gallons per day (MGD) = 1.55 cubic feet per second (cfs) = 3,785 cubic meters per day (m3/day)

1 milligram per liter (mg/l) = 1 part per million (ppm) = 1,000 parts per billion (ppb)

1 pound per square inch (psi) = 2.04 inches mercury (in Hg) = 27.7 inches water (in H2O)

1 Quad = 1015 BTU

Conversions for Units of Measurements

1Between 2 and 3 percent* of the worldsenergy consumption is used to pumpand treat water for urban residents andindustry.1 Energy consumption in mostwater systems worldwide could bereduced by at least 25 percent throughcost-effective efficiency actions.2 Waterutilities globally have the potential to cost-effectively save more energy than theentire country of Thailand uses annually.3

Unfortunately, relatively little attention hasbeen given to reducing energy use inmunicipal water systems.

Energy costs draw precious budgetaryresources from other important municipalfunctions such as education, public trans-portation, and health care. In the develop-ing world, the cost of energy to supplywater may easily consume half of a munic-ipalitys total budget. Even in developedcountries municipal water systems,energy is typically the second largestcost after labor.

The burning of fossil fuels to generatethe energy used to supply water affectslocal and global air quality. Emissionsfrom power plants contribute to alreadyhigh levels of pollutants in the urbanenvironment and the acidification of lakesand forests. In addition, millions of tonsof carbon dioxide are emitted every year,contributing to global climate change.Global climate change has the potentialto reduce water tables and disrupt watersupplies in many areas, making watereven more costly and energy intensiveto obtain in the future.

Some Utilities Are Leadingthe WaySome municipal water managers in citiessuch as Austin, United States; Toronto,Canada; Stockholm, Sweden; and Sydney,Australia are aggressively taking advantageof opportunities to save energy in theirfacilities. The Alliance to Save Energy iden-tified more than 30 municipalities imple-menting a range of simple, cost-effectiveactions to reduce energy use, while main-taining or even improving service.

The Alliance has worked with severalmunicipalities in the past five years learn-ing about both the potential opportunityfor energy savings and the difficulties inachieving them. Fortaleza, Brazil, hasdramatically reduced total energy use by5 MW in its first year after adopting energyefficiency goals, while actually increasingservice connections. The city of Indore,India, was able to save 1.6 million rupees(US$35,000) within the first three monthsof action with no investment cost just byimproving the way existing pumps workedtogether. The city of Pune, India, quicklyidentified more than 7 million rupees(US$150,000) of energy savings opportu-nities after kicking off an energy efficiencyprogram but has only managed to imple-ment one-fifth of the projects.

* About 8 Quads (1 Quad = 1015 BTU)

Executive Summary

Watergy: energy used in water systems

Watergy efficiency: optimizing energy use to cost-effectively meet water needs

Energy consumption in most watersystems worldwide could be reduced

by at least 25 percent throughcost-effective efficiency actions

The utilities we have identified standin stark contrast to the vast majority ofmunicipal water utilities around the worldthat have not taken basic measures toreduce energy use. Water system managersfrequently do not have the technicalknowledge or capacity needed to tacklethe numerous efficiency opportunities. Inmany cases, they lack the necessary meter-ing and monitoring systems to collect data,establish baselines and metrics, and con-duct facility assessments. Often when datado exist, they are not shared among depart-ments and groups within a municipalwater utility.

Blueprint for SuccessThis report outlines the elements of awatergy efficiency system optimizingenergy use to cost-effectively meet waterneeds. These elements reflect many of theapproaches taken by the water utilitiesoutlined in the case studies boasting themost comprehensive programs.

Utilities employing cross-cuttingteams have found that additional energyand capital savings can be achieved whenthey analyze potential water delivery sys-tem improvements while simultaneously

promoting more efficient water use bycustomers. In some instances, reducing theconsumers demand for water may allow forreductions in the capacity needs of pumpsand pipes.

Critical steps in building the capacityof the team include supplying the tools tometer and monitor energy and water use,training in energy efficiency techniques,and providing adequate resources to investin identified projects.

Many worthwhile energy efficiencyactions can be completed for little or nocost. In fact, installing metering and moni-toring systems can save ten percent ofenergy costs simply through behavioralchanges and improved maintenance. Whilesome simple improvements can easily bedetected just by metering, many oppor-tunities will remain unexploited withoutfurther analysis of data. Many utilities havefound benchmarking similar systems with-in their own operations to be an excellentway to measure energy efficiency progress.

For larger projects, investment capitalis commonly a key stumbling block.Finding funds to implement more costlyefficiency projects can often be foundthrough savings resulting from other

Watergy

2

Expected Efficiency Gains by Water Utility Management Approach to Energy Efficiency

3Executive Summary

watergy efficiency actions such as reduc-ing water waste and theft, improving basicmaintenance practices, reducing subsidies,and optimizing system performance.

Identifying OpportunitiesSome of the specific water system energysaving opportunities are easy to identify,such as leaks and malfunctioning equip-ment. Other energy saving actions aremore difficult to detect, such as impropersystem layout or degraded pipes.

Common problems include: Leaks Low c-value for pipes (high level

of friction inside pipes) Improper system layout System overdesign Incorrect equipment selection Old, outdated equipment Poor maintenance Waste of usable water.

Remedies may involve: System redesign and retrofitting of

equipment Pump impeller reduction Leak and loss reductions Equipment upgrades Low-friction pipe Efficient pumps Adjustable speed drive motors Capacitors Transformers Maintenance and operation practices

improvements Water reclamation and reuse.

Water utilities often overlook thepotential of saving energy and money byreducing the water consumption of theircustomers. Helping customers do more

with less water, using technologies such aslow-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads,and energy efficient washing machines isoften the most cost-effective way to saveenergy.

This Problem Is Not Going Away The urban population of the world isexpected to double within the next40 years.4 If we continue on the currentpath, energy consumption by municipalwater utilities will double as well. Onlyhalf of urban dwellers currently havewater connections. Energy prices arerising. Water resources are dwindling atthe same time that urban populationsare swelling. Municipal water utilities,customers, politicians, the environment,and just about everyone else will paythe price for continued waste. Municipalwater utilities therefore have a powerfulincentive to pursue the potential ofwatergy efficiency.

42. Water Management Models

A tremendous amount of energy is used to provide water services globally. Energy consumed worldwide for delivering watermore than 26 Quads (1 Quad = 1015

BTU)approximately equals the total amount of energy used in Japan and Taiwancombined, on the order of 7 percent of total world consumption.5

In the United States, the water and wastewater sector annually consumes 75 billion kWh3 percent of the total consumption of electricity6 or equal to the total electricityconsumed by the pulp and paper and petroleum sectors.7

Water is becoming scarcer, often making it more energy intensive to procure. Less than 1 percent of the worlds freshwaterabout 0.008 percent of all water on earth

is readily accessible for direct human use.8

Average annual global renewable water resources equaled 7,045 m3 per person in theyear 2000,9 a drop of 40 percent per person since 1970, due to growing worldpopulation.

Twenty countries (most of them in Africa and the Middle East) suffer chronic water scarcity,causing severe damage to food production and stunted economic development.10

More energy is required to pump water greater distances and from deeper in the ground.

Major segments of the urban population are not getting adequate service. The average city only provides electricity connections to about 85 percent of urban

households11 and may lack sufficient energy supplies to meet existing demand.

Only about half of urban dwellers in developing countries currently have waterconnections in their homes and more then one-quarter have no access to safe drinkingwater.12

To reach universal coverage by 2025, almost 3 billion people need to be linked withwater supply and more than 4 billion with sanitation.13

Low-income urban dwellers not connected to water systems often must turn toalternative supplies, such as water vendors who may charge 16 times or more than theformal piped water tariff.14

Urban demand for both water and energy resources is expected to grow dramatically. Energy use world-wide is expected to grow by more than 60 percent over the next 20

years.15

By 2020 more than 50 percent of the population in developing countries will be urban.16

The total electricity consumption of the water and wastewater sectors will grow globallyby a predicted 33 percent in the next 20 years.17

Global water consumption grew sixfold between 1900 and 1995.18

In 2025 one-third of the global population is expected to live in chronic water shortageareas.19

To help meet the water and energy resource needs, municipalities can reduceenergy and water waste. Municipal water utilities alone can cost-effectively save more energy (on the order of 2.5

Quads) than the entire country of Thailand consumes in a year through simple efficiencysteps.20

Eliminating unaccounted-for water (leaks, theft, etc.) in many large cities in developingcountries would more than double the amount of water available for delivery21 anddrastically reduce energy use.

B A S I C G L O B A L W A T E R G Y F A C T S

200

2, C

ORB

IS

In their role as water providers for almost50 percent of the worlds population,municipal water utilities play a vital rolein managing this often-scarce resource. Asglobal urbanization continues, municipalwater utilities have the complex task ofcost-effectively providing water to keepcities functioning. Limited energyresources, sparse freshwater supplies, andmounting environmental concerns makewater delivery even more challenging.

Most water utilities in the world neithermaximize the benefits of energy and waterresources, nor minimize their negativeenvironmental impacts. By creating andempowering comprehensive watergy effi-ciency management structures, municipalwater utilities can cost-effectively providewater services, reduce energy consump-tion, and protect the environment.

The term watergy is used in thispaper to describe the linkage that existsbetween water and energy in the context of

municipal water utilities. This linkage ofwater and energy exists given the part thatenergy plays in conveying water to the enduser as well as its role in potable water dis-infection and wastewater treatment. Whenwater is wasted in a municipal water sys-tem, energy is almost always squandered aswell. See figure 1 for a pictorial descriptionof this relationship.

For this discussion, watergy efficiencymeans cost-effectively providing the con-sumer with the desired services associatedwith water, while using the least amountof water and energy possible. Watergyefficiency encompasses the spectrum ofwater efficiency activities, energy efficiencyactivities, and resulting synergies fromcomanaging water and energy resources.By understanding all of the existing link-ages between water and energy within awater delivery system, water utilities havea tremendous opportunity to adapt theirpolicies and practices to improve efficiency

5

I. Introduction

Figure 1: Description of Watergy

compared with simply addressing waterand energy needs separately.

The need for maximizing the potentialof existing water and energy resources iscritical. The average amount of renewablewater* per person in the world hasdropped by 40 percent since 1970, duemainly to increases in population.22 Twentycountries, most of them in Africa and theMiddle East, currently face chronic watershortages that severely disrupt economicdevelopment. This number will more thandouble in the next 25 years, as more thanthree billion people around the world willlack access to safe, adequate water sup-plies.23 Many of these same countries facesimilarly crippling energy shortages thatdisrupt business and lives. In fact, on theorder of 7 percent of worldwide energyproduction is used to pump water.

Municipalities are important actors inefforts to improve the efficient utilizationof water and energy. By the year 2020,more than half of the developing worldpopulation is expected to live in cities.24

With increased urban populations andgrowing municipal industrial sectors, theamount of water and energy use will growsteadily. Furthermore, although the propor-tion of water consumed by the agriculturalsector currently represents 7080 percentof water use worldwide, urban and indus-trial users will continue to place ever-greater demands on increasingly scarcewater resources.

The potential for watergy efficiencyimprovements is tremendous. In India,for example, the Confederation of IndianIndustry (CII) estimates that the typical

Watergy

6

* The amount of renewable water over a period of timeat a specific location corresponds to the quantity of waterthat is naturally replaced in that same timeframe throughnatural processes, such as rain, runoff, or snowmelt.

Indian municipal water utility has thepotential to improve water system efficiencyby 25 percent.25 Because many municipalwater utilities in India spend upward of 60percent of their energy budgets for waterpumping, this significant savings could beused to improve service. Based on a recentstudy of watergy efficiency opportunities inTexas (see page 9) water utilities in theUnited States could easily reduce 15 per-cent of total electricity use, saving almostUS$1 billion. Latin Americans spend US$1to $1.5 billion annually just to pump waterthat never reaches the end user due to sys-tem leaks, theft, and faulty equipment.Coincidently, US$1 to $1.5 billion is alsothe amount needed annually to providewater and sanitation services to all LatinAmericas currently unserved citizens.26

This document includes seven sections:1. Section One defines the concept of

watergy efficiency and justifies theneed for efficient water and energyresource management.

2. Section Two lists various water andenergy efficiency management modelsused by municipalities.

3. Section Three describes how to craftan efficient watergy managementstructure.

4. Section Four reviews the process fordeveloping the appropriate institu-tional capacity to carry out watergyefficiency actions.

5. Sections Five and Six outline stepsmunicipalities can take to addressefficiency opportunities on both thesupply side and demand side.

6. Section Seven presents the reportsconclusion.

Following Section Seven, a case studycompendium outlines the watergy efficien-cy activities of 17 cities around the world.

1. Introduction

Appendixes AF list additional technicalresources.

Although this document is a resourcefor building appropriate water efficiencyprograms, it is not a blueprint. Because theproblems and resources of each municipalwater authority are unique, the best prac-tices and case studies described must beadapted to fit the realities of a givensituation. For example, vast differencescan occur among existing infrastructure,financial resources and other aspects ofwater utilities in developing and developedcountries; however, many of the basic prin-ciples covered in this report are equallyapplicable. In addition, the report does notdistinguish between public and privatemanagement structures, but instead isintended to deliver information valuable toany variant of public and private deliverysystems.

1.1 THE LINK BETWEENENERGY AND WATER:WATERGY EFFICIENCYIn the process of improving overall watersystem efficiency, municipal water authori-ties should view energy and water con-sumption as linked inputs, rather thanviewing them as separate and unrelated.Energy is necessary for moving waterthrough municipal water systems, makingwater potable, and removing waste fromwater. Each liter of water moving througha system represents a significant energycost. Water losses in the form of leakage,theft, consumer waste, and inefficientdelivery all directly affect the amount ofenergy required to deliver water to theconsumer. Wastage of water regularlyleads to a waste of energy.

Activities undertaken to save water andthose to save energy can have a greater

impact when they are planned together.For example, a leak reduction programalone will likely save water and reducepressure losses leading to energy savingsfrom reduced pumping demand. Replacinga pump with a more efficient one by itselfwill likely save energy. If the two are coor-dinated together through a watergy effi-ciency program, the reduction in pressurelosses from leaks will allow smaller pumpsto be purchased for the upgrade than oth-erwise possible, saving additional energyand money.

1.2 THE CASE FORWATERGY EFFICIENCYIncentives for municipal water authoritiesto improve water efficiency include lower-ing costs, ensuring energy and water secu-rity, and reducing environmental impacts.

The Most Cost-Effective OptionWatergy efficiency is often the most cost-effective way to improve water deliveryservices to existing consumers and at thesame time meet the needs of growing pop-ulations. Comprehensive water efficiencyefforts reduce costs, increase the service

7

Case Study of Indore Municipal Corporation

In the 1970s the Indore Municipal Corporation in Indore,India, built an expensive 70 km water line over a moun-tain to deliver additional water resources to meet anexpected increase in demand from a growing population.The actual population increase, however, far exceededanticipated growth, and Indore is again facing a watershortage. Additional capacity will take years and cost mil-lions of rupees to bring on line. New capacity would alsohave a significant impact on the availability of electricityresources in Indore for years to come. Efficiency effortswith immediate impact are now under way to try to getmore benefit from existing resources. Had Indore plannedfor efficiency from the outset, its capital investmentsmight still be adequate to serve city needs.

capacity of the existing system, andimprove customer satisfaction.

Cities can provide additional water forgrowing consumption by installing newcapacity, although this has sustainabilityimplications, as natural water supplies fromany source are finite. The other option is toget more from existing capacity by imple-menting water utility efficiency programs.For example, many municipal water utili-ties in developing countries typically havesystem water losses between 30 and 60percent. Even many municipalities indeveloped countries see water lossesbetween 15 and 25 percent.27

Toronto estimates that saving waterthrough its efficiency program costs one-third less than developing new capacity.By choosing to focus on efficiency, the Cityof Toronto has chosen to maintain andimprove the benefits consumers currentlyreceive, while minimizing costs.28

Ensuring AdequateEnergy SupplyThe energy savings realized through waterefficiency can play a significant part inensuring an adequate supply of energy forthe entire municipality. Many municipali-ties throughout the world currently eitherface energy shortages or will in the nearfuture. Generating new power suppliestakes large amounts of time and money.Because water systems use a significantamount of energy, municipalities canquickly help reduce the potential forenergy shortfalls and the need for expen-sive new energy infrastructure throughwatergy efficiency.

In the central and northern parts ofBrazil, for example, low rainfall createda crisis situation for electricity supply in

2001 by limiting available power fromhydroelectric plants. The City of Fortalezain the northeast State of Cear facedpotential blackouts due to an estimated20 percent electric power shortfall. In aneffort to reduce the impact of the electrici-ty shortage, the state identified Fortalezaswater utility as a major potential source ofelectricity demand reductions. The waterutility is a key player in Cears efforts,both because it is one of the largest elec-tricity consumers and because it holds somany opportunities to reduce electricityuse rapidly through efficiency.

Maintaining SufficientWater SuppliesAs many municipalities around the worldface water shortages, watergy efficiencywill become an even more important toolin ensuring the availability of water.

More than 40 percent of the worldspopulation currently lives in water-stressedareas; this percentage is likely to increaseto 50 percent by the year 2025, as demandfor water grows. Municipalities in particu-lar have seen an increase in water demand,due mostly to population growth, burgeon-ing rural to urban migration, and industri-alization.29 Many municipalities are findingit harder to secure adequate sources ofwater to meet this growing demand.

Watergy efficiency is one of the majortools municipalities have to maintainwater supplies large enough to meetdemand. Reducing system water lossesand waste can have the same effect asincreasing supply: more water is availableto go to the consumer. In addition, waterutilities can help ensure municipal watersupplies by working with consumers toget more benefit from each unit of water

Watergy

8

1. Introduction

used through water-efficient technologiesand reduced waste.

Minimizing EnvironmentalImpactsMunicipal water authorities must not onlyconsider financial and resource securitybenefits resulting from using water moreefficiently, but also need to recognize the

environmental risks from energy use andoverharvesting of water resources.

Energy is predominantly produced byburning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, andnatural gas, which, when burned, releasehigh quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2),nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide(CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulates,mercury, and other dangerous pollutants.

9

The Scope of the Opportunity: The Case of the State of Texas, United States

Fact:By striving to achieve very modest efficiency targets, Texas could not only improve its water resourcesituation, but could also plan on saving at least 1.6 billion kWh and 7 billion ft3 (200 million m3) of gasannually in a very cost-effective manner.

Texas, located in the southern United States, has a relatively dry climate and limited water resources.It encompasses 261,914 square miles and is home to 20.1 million people. To address its burgeoning waterneeds, the state has taken an aggressive approach to water efficiency. In spite of this, huge opportunities stillexist for municipalities in this state to save water and reduce energy usage

Overview of Municipal Water Utilities in Texas Water utilities in Texas use 2.5 kWh 4.0 kWh per 1,000 gal pumped (.66 kWh1.05 kWh per 1,000 liters). Nearly 3.0 billion gal of treated water is delivered for municipal and industrial purposes. Total electricity usage for water delivery is 2.84.8 billion kWh a year. Water authorities spend $180288 million yearly for electricity. The electricity needed to produce chlorine and other water and wastewater treatment chemicals is

equal to an additional 0.020.10 kWh per 1,000 gal of water used (0.005 to 0.028 kWh per 1,000 liters).

Potential Energy and Water Savings by Sector

Water UtilitiesBy reducing water utility losses by an amount equal to 5 percent of water distributed, Texas could save140240 million kWh of electricity annually with a cost savings of approximately US$9$14 million. Energyefficiency improvements of 10 percent in the delivery system could save an additional 300 million kWh.

ResidentialStudies conducted in Texas and supported by other sources document the opportunity for reductions of1020 percent in residential hot water usage. This is possible through programs such as retrofitting ofshowerheads, installing faucet aerators, promoting efficient appliances, and so on. By promoting thesetechnologies, Texas could save annually 1 billion kWh of electricity, 7 billion ft3of gas, and US$21 million.

Industrial

The industrial sector currently uses 2.8 billion gal (10.6 billion liters) of water daily and has pumping andtreating energy requirements of 0.52.0 kWh for every 1,000 gallons used (0.13 kWh0.53 kWh per 1,000liters). Reducing this amount by even 10 percent would save around 100 million kWh per year.

Source: Texas Water Development Agency, no date, Relationships between Water and Energy Use inTexas, unpublished.

Emissions of SO2 and NOx from burningfossil fuels are specifically responsible formany urban air quality problems. Burningof coal remains one of the most prolificsources of mercury contamination world-wide. In addition, CO2 is the primary gasresponsible for global climate change; itwill, it is believed, have future adverseimpacts on the worlds cities through moreextreme weather events, such as droughts,heat waves, floods, and storms.

Overharvesting of water is also envi-ronmentally risky. Removing too muchwater from the ground, lakes, and riverscan devastate local ecosystems and lead tosoil salinization and even desertification.The Aral Sea in Central Asia is an ominousreminder of the potential dangers of exces-

sive water harvesting. The lake and itsfreshwater sources, once teeming withlife and aquatic resources, were diverted,plundered and polluted to the point thatthe lake has shrunk to less than half itsoriginal size. What remains is virtuallya dead body of brackish water.

Municipal water authorities consideringwatergy efficiency actions will find themeven more attractive after taking intoaccount the reduction of environmentalrisks and impacts.

Watergy

10

Municipal water utilities, both publicly andprivately owned, often lack sufficient insti-tutional capacity to develop practicalapproaches for maximizing watergy effi-ciency, even after recognizing the potentialbenefits. The failure is mainly rooted inmanagement structures that do not empow-er staff to address efficiency issues directly.

The management models that mostwater utilities employ to deal with efficien-cy, irrespective of the composition of theirownership, fall somewhere among threegeneral approaches: ad hoc, single manag-er, and team (see table 1). Municipal water

authorities have found that the furtherthey move from ad hoc decision making toa holistic team approach, the more watergyefficiency gains they realize.

2.1 THE AD HOC APPROACHWater utilities relying on ad hoc responsesto promote water and energy efficiency lackthe institutional capacity and commitmentto take advantage of the vast majority ofefficiency opportunities. Utilities operatingin this mode may have no comprehensivemanagement plan. Instead, the responsibilityfor initiating water and energy efficiency

Key Characteristics Tools and ResourcesType of Management

Response

This is often the default approach. Upper-level management focus is limited. Efficiency activities are done without

considering systemwide impacts. System maintenance is done on a

reactive basis. Little or no communication takes place

among operating units.

Water and energy metering or monitoringinfrastructure is limited or nonexistent.

Water and energy data available areneither widely shared nor prepared inusable form.

Project funds are often unavailable.

Response is often focused on oneparticular efficiency opportunity (locationor technology).

Upper-level management recognizes theneed to focus on efficiency.

Limited communication, but insignificantlevel of collaboration takes place amongoperating units.

Efficiency manager has little direct controlover key personnel.

Financing is available on the merits of theactual project.

Data gathering occurs, but is limited inscope and distribution.

Some personnel and equipment aredesignated for specific projects.

Projects are funded on a case-by-casebasis.

Response approaches efficiency as asystemwide issue; all operating unitspromote efficiency.

Upper-level management makesefficiency a priority and regularly checksprogress.

System maintenance is an integral part ofday-to-day activities.

Managers and staff recognize inter-connection of various parts of the systemin designing efficiency projects.

Watergy utility efficiency team leadershiphas some control over key personnel.

Access to personnel with broad range ofskills

Major data collection program with well-designed and distributed reports

Efficiency is a key component of allfinancial decisions.

Cost savings from projects are often putback into a fund for additional upgrades.

Other innovative funding mechanisms areoften available to implement projects.

Ad Hoc

SingleManager

Team

Table 1: Watergy Efficiency Management Structures

HIG

H E

FFIC

IEN

CY

PO

TEN

TIA

LLO

W E

FFIC

IEN

CY

PO

TEN

TIA

L

11

2. Water Management Models

improvements typically falls to staff that canonly react to problems as they occur. Energyand water projects are often implementedwithout consciously addressing efficiencyand are unlikely to be proactively linkedwith other efforts to maximize savings.

The ad hoc approach is characterizedby a scarcity of water and energy use data,lack of coordination among various depart-ments, and limited capital allocation toefficiency projects. Top managers do notfocus on watergy efficiency and do notassign resources to this purpose.

For example, the Indore MunicipalCorporation, prior to its recent efforts tocreate a water utility efficiency team, hadnot been measuring or tracking any of itsenergy use data. Instead, it relied on theelectric utility to quantify its use of elec-tricity for pumping water. One of the firstthings the team discovered after institutinga metering and monitoring program wasthat it was being charged for more elec-tricity than it actually used.30

2.2 SINGLE MANAGER APPROACHMunicipal water authorities may choose toappoint an individual to address specificconcerns, such as pump efficiency, waterconservation, or wastewater treatment. Inmany cases, the creation of a dedicatedefficiency manager is a positive step inaddressing key watergy efficiency issues.An individual focused on a single issue

can deliver significant savings to the utility.An efficiency manager will likely stimulateincreased levels of data collection andsharing. This can help other departmentsimprove efficiency.

The appointment of an efficiency man-ager, however, does not go far enough inbringing together all the resources requiredto maximize watergy efficiency. The weak-nesses of the efficiency manager approachstem from the limited involvement of keystaff members in the watergy efficiencyprocess. Simply hiring an energy efficiencymanager does not stimulate the compre-hensive effort by multiple departments andstaff needed to achieve the greatest savings.

Some common complaints from effi-ciency managers employed in this type ofsystem include:

Sufficient control over resources andother staffs time is lacking for efficiencyefforts.

Many stakeholders from numerousdepartments are often left underin-volved and unempowered on waterand energy efficiency issues, becausewatergy efficiency is not a direct partof their job.

Limited interaction, planning, and coor-dination among various departments isdetrimental to promoting the effective-ness of systemwide efficiency measures.

Efficiency projects are more likelyto fail if they lack buy-in and coordi-nation among departments.In Fortaleza, Brazil, the municipal water

authority, Companhia de gua e Esgoto doCear (CAGECE), employs an energy effi-ciency manager who promotes severalsuccessful programs. One of the managersimportant achievements was includingenergy efficiency as a key element in themunicipal water authoritys strategic planfor improvement; this included establishing

Watergy

12

Most municipal water authorities willfind that the further they move fromad hoc decision making to a holisticteam approach, the more watergy

efficiency gains they realize.

goals for energy efficiency. Although thegoals themselves are impressive andimprovements have been made, the energyefficiency manager has encountered anumber of impediments.

The first problem involved informationsharing. CAGECE invested in a sophisti-cated metering and monitoring system,but the information it provided only wentto certain individuals. The energy efficien-cy manager did not receive the requireddata in a usable format.

The second problem was how littleinput the energy efficiency manager hadinto key investment decisions that criticallyaffected energy efficiency throughout thesystem. For example, maintenance staffmade repair decisions for motors andpumps based solely on the cost of therepair, compared with the cost of purchas-ing new, more efficient equipment. Theydid not take into account the depreciatedvalue of older equipment and potentialadditional savings from upgrading to moreefficient equipment. In effect, a 10-year-oldinefficient motor requiring the same repairas a 1-year-old, high-efficiency motor wasgiven similar consideration for replacement.

A third problem involved the fact thatmany of the ideas, proposals, and deci-sions coming from the energy efficiencymanager were not completely coordinatedwith other investments in water supply,system pressure, and water treatment.These investments typically did not cap-ture the maximum potential efficiencyimprovements.

The appointment of an energy efficien-cy manager has been a significant step inimproving CAGECEs water efficiency.Nonetheless, both senior managers and theenergy efficiency manager recognize theneed to include additional resources, ideas,and participation to make further progress.

2.3 THE WATERGY EFFICIENCYTEAM APPROACHBased on the experiences of numerouswater utilities and lessons learned undersimilar circumstances in the private sector,water utilities employing a team manage-ment approach to watergy efficiency willbe better positioned to take advantage ofefficiency opportunities.

The experiences of many municipalwater authorities, such as those docu-mented in this report indicate that theteam approach to watergy efficiency isan integral part of successful operational

2. Water Management Models

13

Champions of Water Efficiency: The Case of Columbus, Georgia, United States

At Columbus Water Works (CWW) in Columbus, Georgia,energy costs are the largest single expenditure. CWW hasgreatly benefited from the efforts of water efficiencychampions. It took the leadership of President BillyTurner, senior vice president of operations, Cliff Arnett,and others to make the transition to an energy-efficientoperation.

These senior leaders encourage operators, team leaders,and other staff members to propose plans to increase effi-ciency. Mr. Arnett has to be sold on a proposal; he thentakes it to the president. Managers and team leaders alsohave biannual seminars on energy-efficient training.

The results of this system have been impressive. CWW hasre-engineered and fully automated the entire plant. Theyretrofitted older equipment, installed adjustable speeddrives, and automated speed controls for pumps. Theyhave made significant investments in energy-efficientmotors, including an upgrade of their 750 HP motor,which saved them $200,000, reduced their energy costsby 20 percent, and realized a 1-year payback.

In a five-year period CWW has saved more than $1 millionby changing its rate structure, optimizing processes, andadding efficient technologies to blowers, motors, andpumps. With a view to introducing new ideas and insight,the utility employs an energy consultant quarterly toreview the energy situation.

Source: Cliff Arnett, senior vice president of operations,Columbus Water Works.

strategies. Even though each of the munici-pal water authorities highlighted in the casestudies took a unique approach to creatingthe watergy efficiency team infrastructure,a number of similarities underscore thebenefits of this methodology.

The watergy efficiency team originatesfrom strong advocates or champions atthe senior and middle management levels.A senior manager may identify comprehen-sive water and energy efficiency as a corefunction of the water authority and ensurethat appropriate resources are dedicated toachieving this goal. Middle-level manage-ment provides the day-to-day leadershipand does the actual work of incorporatingenergy efficiency into water system man-agement duties.

Watergy efficiency teams can mobilizea wide variety of resources and staff toimprove communication throughout thecompany. In addition, teams are able tostreamline efficiency project identificationand implementation and ensure the coor-dination of activities. A functioning teamwill make water and energy efficiencypart of the core business of the waterutility.

Lessons from the Private Sector:Corporate Energy ManagementPrograms The team concept to promote efficiency isnot new. In fact, the private sector has longbeen using corporate energy managementprograms (CEMP) to great effect in waysthat mirror and add credence to the water-utility efficiency team concept. Severalmanufacturing companies, includingOwens Corning, Johnson & Johnson, and3M, have found that it makes good busi-ness sense to adopt comprehensive corpo-rate energy management programs.31 Thesecompanies have reduced operating costs towell below the levels of competition thatlack institutionalized energy managementprograms.

A key lesson of CEMP systems forwatergy efficiency teams is that continuousimprovement requires a management struc-ture that combines the technical aspects ofenergy efficiency with effective operationalmanagement. As a recent study by theAmerican Gas Association highlights, manyfacilities concerned about operating costsoften identify and implement energy effi-ciency opportunities on an ad hoc basis.

Watergy

14

Source: Based on documented gains to CEMPs highlighted in a study by the American Gas Association extrapolated to themunicipal water sector.

Table 2: Expected Benefits from Watergy Efficiency Management Approach Based on CEMP Experience

Initial savings from this approach generallytotal between 5 and 10 percent of energycosts. Through CEMPs, however, compa-nies not only realize the initial 510 per-cent savings, but another 515 percent(see table 2) in improved operations andmaintenance practices.32 Additionally,because energy production and use at afacility is not static, facility performancecan deteriorate to crisis proportions in afew years without ongoing management.33

Characteristics of an EffectiveWatergy Efficiency TeamA recent report by the Alliance to SaveEnergy on corporate energy managementcharacterized eight key elements in corpo-rate energy management programs. Thesecritical CEMP components are all essentialfor creating a successful watergy efficiencymanagement program:34

1. Commitment by top-level management2. Clearly defined energy reduction goals3. Communication of the goals through-

out all levels in the company4. Assignment of project responsibility

and accountability at the proper level5. Formulation and tracking of energy-

use metrics6. Identification of all potential projects

on a continuous basis7. Adoption of project investment crite-

ria, reflecting project risks and returns8. Provision of recognition and reward

for achieving the goals.

One element of an effective watergyefficiency team that directly parallels theCEMP structure is the enactment of ametering and monitoring system to pinpointenergy and water waste. This system pro-vides key members of affected departmentswith an integrated view of pertinent infor-mation. The City of Austin, for example,

has developed an aggressive monitoringprogram to provide its staff the maximumopportunity to enact efficiency gains.Austins water utility provides a regularstream of appropriate data to staff viae-mail to empower its managers andemployees. Data, such as specific pumpinginformation, customer sales, and systemperformance, are constantly sent to appro-priate staff who can then optimize theirwater and energy efficiency efforts. Thesedata are stored in accessible databasesthat provide benchmarks on efficiencyefforts.

An excellent example of the successof Austins data-sharing system comes inthe area of leak reduction. By installingmultiple submeters and coordinating theflow of pertinent information directlyfrom meters to crews that repair lines,Austin has reduced system losses to only8 percent.

Austin also has an advanced consumermonitoring system that helps focus theresources of their demand-side efficiencyprograms. Employees are able to differenti-ate up to 30 categories of water users, suchas hospitals and schools. This informationallows Austins staff to target resourcesbetter to inefficient water users, either bycomparing sectors or by benchmarkingcustomers within a sector. For example,a hospital using more water than itscounterparts would be a likely candidatefor a water audit.

Corporate energy management pro-grams have been documented as excellentvehicles to reach maximum efficiencygains. Just as industries have found thismanagement approach empowering,municipal water authorities will find somehybrid of the management team approachto be the most effective methodology topromote water and energy efficiency.

2. Water Management Models

15

17

3. Crafting a Watergy EfficiencyTeam Infrastructure

3.1 THE GOAL OF AWATERGY EFFICIENCY TEAMThe purpose of creating a watergy efficiencyteam is to marshal resources and tools tomaximize efficiency. The end result is toprovide the same or greater benefit to thewater end user while reducing operatingcosts, energy use, waste, and per capitaenergy and water consumption. Thewatergy efficiency teams role is to:

Organize and coordinate water andenergy efficiency efforts

Generate a pool of technical know-howto identify and implement projects

Assemble pertinent data to identifyinefficiencies

Create a management focus on waterand energy efficiency.

3.2 THE FORMATION OF AWATERGY EFFICIENCY TEAMCreating a watergy efficiency team involvesputting together the right group of people,armed with the appropriate resources, toidentify opportunities, develop and imple-ment projects, and track results.

No single correct approach exists tobuilding a watergy efficiency team. Manyvariables, including size, financial capabili-ties, and experience with watergy efficien-cy, will dictate how individual utilitiesapproach the effort. As part of the planningprocess to build a watergy efficiency pro-gram, serious consideration should be givento available staff and financial resources andthe opportunity costs of engaging theseresources in the pursuit of efficiency.

The team-building process for CAGECE,the water utility in Fortaleza, Brazil, beganwith management recognition of the keyrole of energy in their water system. Thatled to the appointment of an energy effi-

ciency manager. Initial steps to gain cred-ibility included improving operationalefficiency of several components of thewater system and getting energy-usereduction targets adopted by senior man-agement. The energy efficiency manager,however, recognized the limitations of hisposition in terms of gathering data andenacting systemwide efficiency measures.The energy manager was limited by thefact that senior management did not iden-tify efficiency as part of the core jobs ofseveral key staff members.

After deciding to adopt a teamapproach, CAGECE went through a plan-ning process to determine the criticalaspects of their water system that neededimprovement. From this process, CAGECEwas able to establish its measures of suc-cess, including specific energy-use reduc-tion goals, and target priority areas ofinitial work. The planning process provid-ed the link to identifying the key playersthe utility needed to mobilize for theirwatergy efficiency team.

Table 3 lists likely key players and theirroles on a watergy efficiency team based onfindings from many of the successful pro-grams canvassed in this study. Few waterutilities will have the resources to allow

Creating a water utility efficiency teaminvolves putting together the right

group of people armed with theappropriate resources to identify

opportunities, develop and implementprojects, and track results.

Watergy

18

Description of RolePotential Team

Member

Sell to mayor and other city officials Break bottlenecks Advocate for project funding Ensure a team budget Track progress

Motivate team members Provide team vision and create goals Develop a work plan and implementation schedule Assign tasks Coordinate information flows Evaluate systemwide opportunities Advocate for project financing Facilitate interdepartmental cooperation

Provide critical data Identify and involve key technical staff Implement and maintain projects Discover critical design efficiency issues

Top management

Watergy efficiencymanager

Unit level managers(water supply plant,

treatment plant,delivery operations,

and so on)

Table 3: Human Resources Required for Watergy Efficiency Team

Hydrology staff Contribute key technical know-how Provide an important data source Offer significant contribution to water supply/sanitation systemwide planning Liaison with a basin-level resource planning entity

Maintenance staff Identify and implement efficiency opportunities Provide critical data

Energy staff Supply a major component of data Contribute to project identification and implementation Serve as resource for technology option

Data collection/input staff

Perform basic data management and distribution functions

System planner Offer long-term investment awareness to watergy efficiency process

Finance staff Prioritize activities based on cost-effectiveness Assess project-financing opportunities

Customer outreachstaff

Create demand-side awareness and reductions

Private sector Undertake consumption reductions as appropriate Offer efficiency know-how and resources

Electric utility Provide expertise and means to promote efficiency Potential source of financing

each of the suggested members to work onefficiency for a major proportion of theirtime. The core team members, however,will be better off developing links andworking relations with as many colleaguesas possible to improve the exchange ofinformation and facilitate the teams activi-ties. The list offers a starting point for utili-ties looking to develop a watergy efficiencyteam, but every successful team will clearlyhave its own identity and may be phasedin over a period of time.

OutsourcingAs a watergy program develops, it maybecome clear that a municipal waterutility lacks the resources, expertise, and/or time to staff and implement the activi-ties of a watergy efficiency team effectively.Outsourcing work to companies thatspecialize in needed areas is often a cost-effective way to enable a water authorityto pursue water and energy reductionsaggressively.

A municipal water authority can out-source anything from a small specificneed to the majority of functions of anefficiency team.

The Municipal Water Company ofColumbus, Georgia, in the United Statesprovides one example of a water utilityusing outsourcing to address a particularneed. In Columbus, the water utility hasan energy consultant conduct an efficiencyaudit on a quarterly basis to look for addi-tional energy efficiency opportunities.The consultants additional set of eyes andtheir outsider perspective allows them tocheck and ensure that staff concerned withday-to-day operations of the system havenot overlooked saving opportunities.

In contrast, the City of Toronto usedoutside consultants to help draft its entire

water efficiency plan. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe,employed outside consultants to helpdevelop its efficiency program and trainlocal staff to implement it. Instead ofappointing a full-time staff person, theAhmedabad Municipal Corporation inIndia used an outside consultant as itsenergy manager for 2 years. This allowedthe energy manager to focus on efficiencywithout getting pulled into other projects.

Outsourcing, however, involves somekey constraints, so managers should givespecial consideration to creating groundrules for outsourced activities. Outsourcingmay require even greater managementsupervision to make certain activities aresuccessful. To manage outsourced activitiesproperly and ensure results, managers needto confirm baselines and create mechanisms

to verify work and savings. Outsourcingactivities also require the vigilant attentionof senior managers to ensure that activitiesprogress as scheduled and that they inter-face with other related measures.

3.3 TOOLS AND RESOURCES OF AWATERGY MANAGEMENT TEAMDuring the process of organizing a watergyefficiency team and programming its activi-ties, managers also need to recognize andprovide the multiple resources that the

3. Crafting a Watergy Efficiency Team Infrastructure

19

Outsourcing work to companies thatspecialize in needed areas is often a

cost-effective way to enable a municipalwater authority to continue to pursuewater efficiency aggressively and help

galvanize the teams activities.

team requires for success. Below is a list ofcommon resources required.

Budget. Ensuring an annual budget isan important part of institutionalizationin any bureaucracy. For a municipalwatergy efficiency team, a budget iscritical to acquiring appropriate toolsand expertise, commissioning technicalstudies, implementing appropriateprojects, and providing continuity.

Time. Team members need to beallotted time to focus their effortson efficiency. In Indore, India, keyteam members repeatedly pointed outthat their workloads often did notallow them the necessary time to focuson accomplishing water and energyefficiency activities.

Access to key staff. To empower awatergy efficiency team fully, manage-ment should allow the team the abilityto access and task key people fromboth inside and outside the team.

Training. Appropriate training empow-ers team members to achieve efficiencygoals. Training can acquaint team

members with up to date efficiencytechnologies, teach up to date opera-tions and maintenance practices, andshow managers how best to enabletheir staff to achieve efficiency gains.

Metering and monitoring equipment.One of the first tasks of the teamshould be to assess the current meter-ing and monitoring system to identifyareas for improvement and determineadditional equipment needs (flowmeters, pressure gauges, and so on).Data can always be improved byincreasing the scope and accuracyof the systems measuring capacity.

Database management tools. Rawdata are ineffectual unless they arerecorded and manipulated into a usableform. Technologies to track and analyzesystemwide data, such as computers,database software, and report genera-tors, are vital resources for improvingefficiency. If funds are limited, leasingthis type of equipment is an option.

Project financing. To prevent a teamsefforts from turning into a strictly aca-demic exercise, identified opportunitiesneed to be implemented. The teamneeds a mechanism to fund worthyprojects. This could include somecombination of the following: develop-ing a relationship with a water and/orenergy service company, leasing equip-ment, creating a separate budget withinthe utility for efficiency projects, fasttracking projects that meet certainpayback goals, and using savings fromlow- or no-cost projects to help fundnew projects.

Watergy

20

3. Crafting a Watergy Efficiency Team Infrastructure

21

Office space. Office space can be animportant institutional building blockfor a watergy efficiency team. The officeserves as a meeting point and an infor-mation hub. In the Indian cities ofPune and Indore, creation of an actualoffice space has been important to insti-tutionalizing the water and energy effi-ciency team. Phones, computers, staff,and other data collection resources fol-lowed the allocation of office space.

The examples of Pune and Indore inIndia provide excellent insights into theimportance of endowing the team withthe proper resources and tools. In manyrespects, the progress of these two munici-pal water companies in implementingwatergy efficiency measures can be directlycorrelated to their ability to engage theappropriate tools and resources.

In the year 2000, the Pune and IndoreMunicipal Corporations began workingwith an NGO to develop managementcapacity to address water and energy effi-ciency. Each of these municipalities hadstrong leadership at the senior manage-ment level that recognized the potentialfor savings based on initial assessmentsof their operations. Each recognized thedata gaps and measuring inadequaciesin their existing system. By deciding toaddress these problems by building awater and energy efficiency team, thesemunicipalities began to reap significantsavings as the most easily addressedprojects were implemented.

As the team-building effort ensued,however, the lack of certain measurementequipment and their inability to procurenecessary resources quickly began to ham-per efforts. Data collection, a key elementof earlier success, could not be improved.To address these issues, both Pune andIndore developed operating plans thatincluded budget, staff, equipment, andtraining to empower the team to achieveeven greater success.

In Pune, for example, the water andenergy efficiency management team was ata near standstill until it procured computerand database systems to track and analyzedata. Once data were gathered and enteredin the system, the energy managementteam started to identify additional savingsopportunities and recognize areas needingfurther attention. The Indore MunicipalCorporation facing a similar lack of equip-ment, created a line item in the municipalbudget for water and energy efficiencywork. In the first year, the corporation pro-vided about US$100,000, which is beingprogrammed to support the teams activi-ties. By making these additional invest-ments, both Indore and Pune have beenable to take advantage of additional savingsopportunities and discover billing errorsmade by the electric utility.

23

4. Building Institutional Capacity

Developing an accurate understanding ofcurrent operating conditions is the first stepfor a water utility to create and implementa watergy efficiency strategy. To understandthe potential of water and energy efficiencyand implement effective solutions, waterutilities need to create a water-metering and-monitoring system, develop baselines andmetrics, carry out facility assessments, andanalyze data to determine the appropriateallocation of resources.

4.1 WATERGY METERING ANDMONITORING SYSTEMAn accurate metering and monitoring sys-tem empowers watergy efficiency teams tobecome aware of system problems and bot-tlenecks, identify the cause of problems,and take corrective actions. Metering andmonitoring systems alone have allowedmany organizations to cut energy con-sumption by 10 percent.35

Resolution of technical issues such asisolating water losses and system pumpingrequirements relies on valid metering dataon water flow and electricity use. Forexample, in wastewater systems, regularmonitoring of flows can indicate problemswith water from the outside infiltrating thesystem. Increased water flow can indicatethat groundwater is seeping into collectionmains through loose joints, main breaks,and cracks. It can also stem from rainfallrunoff that enters from manholes or con-nections such as eave spouts or sumppumps. Water infiltration can create exces-sive demand on system equipment, wastingenergy and money.36

The first task in establishing a meteringand monitoring system is to create a net-work of meters and submeters measuringwater flow and energy use. Although thetechnology employed and the number ofmeters will vary depending on each water

utilitys access to resources, this networkmust measure water and energy enteringinto the system and calculate the waterdelivered to users. In the best-case scenario,the metering system will extend throughoutthe facility to areas where water and energyare used. Separating the system and plantsinto discrete areas (e.g., specific equipmentor section of a building) can facilitate themeasurement of energy and water inputsand outputs.37

The quality of the data will be greatlyaffected by the quantity, quality, and place-ment of measurement equipment. To main-tain accuracy, meters need to be checkedregularly and recalibrated as necessary.

Factors to consider when selectingmeasurement equipment include:

Type of instrument for a given parameter Portable compared with stationary Accuracy compared with cost Operating environment (e.g., physical

stresses or corrosion potential) Physical location and space in the

system.

Table 4 summarizes common types ofinstruments available for a given parameter.

Key Steps to Building Institutional Capacity

Create a watergy metering and monitoring system.Many potential supply-side and demand-side savingsopportunities can be identified, implemented, andverified by developing comprehensive data collectionand management systems.

Develop a baseline and metrics. By creating a baselineand metrics, water management teams can better iden-tify efficiencies, sell projects to management, and tracksuccess.

Carry out facility assessments. Water efficiency man-agement teams can gain a more detailed understand-ing of where opportunities lie within the water systemby conducting facility assessments.

Analyze data. Once all the data are collected, waterutility efficiency teams need to be able to use them tomake decisions on where to focus resources and efforts.

Because several tools exist that can oftenoffer similar measurements, water utilitiesmust identify the best equipment for thespecific job based on internal criteria.

Permanently installed meters can beextremely useful in creating a functionalmetering system. These meters can be con-sistently monitored by staff or electronical-ly to maintain a reasonably reliable dataset. Portable instrumentation, however, isoften advisable for better accuracy. Portableinstruments are easier to maintain and cali-brate and should be used where possible tocheck the precision of installed meters.

Certain tasks may require extremelyaccurate measurement equipment, whereasothers may just require reasonable estimates.Similarly, more physically demanding systemareas that subject equipment to considerable

physical stress and potential damage mightrequire more durable and expensive meters.Water utilities will need to develop criteriato select equipment based on their needscompared with product costs.

It is also important to determine theproper locations to take measurements.Measurements for flow and pressure aregenerally taken around major pumps toassess their efficiency. In fact, major pumpsmay warrant further analysis to identifyoptimal performance conditions.39

Meters cannot provide every measure-ment required. Estimates are necessary forsuch quantities as the vertical rise betweenthe water source and the destination(head*) and in those cases where it is notpractical to take measurements due to pip-ing layout or the physical space available.

Watergy

24

Typical Measurement InstrumentsParameters

Differential pressure devices, such as orifice meters andVenturi meters

Velocity flow meters, such as pitot tubes Open flow meters Positive displacement meters

Bourdon tubes Bellows Diaphragm Piezo-resistive transducers

Ammeters Voltmeters Power factor meters

Water flow rateComparing water flow rates in different parts of the systemcan help pinpoint leaks, high pipe friction, and real-timepumping requirements.

Water pressureMonitoring water pressure can help find leaks, reduceunneeded pumping, and maintain constant service.

Motor input powerInput power readings can help determine if a motor isoperating at its optimal efficiency.

Pump rotating speedRotating speed data can help determine if a motor isoperating at its optimal efficiency.

Strobe light

Equipment nameplate information Rated motor speed, horsepower, full load amperage, and

nominal efficiency Pump flow, head, and speedThis information is vital in determining the optimal efficiencypoint for equipment.

Ongoing monitoring

Head38

Pumps need to be fitted to match the systems headrequirements.

Estimated

Table 4: Watergy Efficiency Performance Measurements

* Head is the vertical distance between the water source and its destination.

In addition to the physical installationof a metering and monitoring system, it isimportant to institutionalize the operationand management of the metering system.Whether checking instruments by hand,using portable tools to take measurements,or receiving data automatically throughcomputer systems, individuals need to beresponsible for accurately recording meas-urements. Maintaining trained and motivat-ed staff in these crucial functions will greatlyimprove the quality of the data output.

4.2 BASELINES AND METRICSTo measure progress on efficiency, it is criti-cal to develop water- and energy-use metricsand then create a baseline to compare thesemetrics with future improvements. Trackingwater efficiency metrics, such as those listedin table 5, can provide critical informationabout a systems efficiency. By selecting a setof metrics to gauge improvements and iden-tify inefficiencies, water utility efficiencymanagement teams will be able to prioritizeopportunities and assess their progress bet-ter. To provide an accurate comparison,water and energy consumption baselinesmust account for intraday, daily, and season-