 Topic:  Energy Audits for Small Water Utilities  Presenter:  Scott A. Strahley, PE, CEA  Association:  Ohio RCAP (Rural Community Assistance Program)  Event:  ASDWA Training, January 12, 2012

 Originally designed for Community and Auditor training and implementation  Beneficial Overview for States  Understanding usefulness  Promote Implemetation  What are the Current Energy Audit Results?  Avg: >28% Reduction& <1 year Payback

 RCAP Founded in 1972  National Non-Profit Organization  Focus on Communities with < 10,000 pop.  6 Regions  RCAC (Western US)  Midwest Assistance Program (MAP, North-Central US)  Community Resource Group (CRG, South-Central US)  Great Lakes RCAP (Northern US)  Southeast RCAP (South-Eastern US)  RCAP Solutions (North-Eastern US)

Western RCAP Rural Community Assistance Corporation Midwest RCAP Midwest Assistance Program Southern RCAP Community Resource Group Northeast RCAP RCAP Solutions Great Lakes RCAP WSOS Community Action Commission Southeast RCAP Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project Rural Community Assistance Partnership

 Great Lakes RCAP  7 States: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin  The Target: provide technical assistance to help small communities address their drinking water, wastewater and community development needs  The Regional RCAP is administered by the WSOS Community Action Commission, Inc. in Fremont, Ohio  GLRCAP = 45 TAPs/State Coordinators/Staff  Ohio RCAP = 22 Full-Time Employees

 Write Grant/Loan Applications for Project Funding  Perform Utility Rate Studies  Preparation of Capacity Assurance Plans  Assist in Asset Management Planning  Provide Community Planning and Visioning  Administer Community Training  Utility Management (Technical, Managerial, Financial)  Financial Management  Asset Management  Project Development  Decentralized Wastewater  Energy Audits (ASHRAE Level I and II)

 Energy Efficiency –  It is doing the same tasks using less energy, through technology and practice  Not compromising quality, safety, or comfort Lighting: All of Them! 24 x 7 x 365!!!!

 Reduction of Energy Costs (Saves Money)!  Reduction of Energy Use  Environmental Stewardship  Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions  At Facility  From Power Generation  Water Conservation  Facility Sustainability

 Improve Equipment Operating Efficiency  Enhance Equipment Life  Reduction of Equipment Maintenance  Provide Affordable Utility Service  Billing Rates for Residents and Customers  Strengthen Your System Capacity!  Time…Costs are Rising!  Compounding Effect

 How Can You Achieve Energy Efficiency?  An Energy Audit is the Best Start!

 Audit:  (1) a formal examination of an organization’s or individual’s accounts or financial situation,  (2) a methodical examination and review -Merriam-Webster Dictionary  In Terms of Energy:  An analysis of the energy usage for a facility or operation and the identification of possible energy conservation opportunities  ASHRAE Levels I, II, and III  Others…

 An Energy Audit will identify the energy-using equipment in a facility and quantify why, how, and how much energy is being used  It will involve billing statements and analysis of the equipment and processes  months of data is preferred for trending

 Benchmarking  Identifying Trends  Decision Tool for Change  Equipment, Processes, System  Budget Planning  Knowledge of the System  Water Loss  Error Reduction  Billing, Payments, Meters, Chemicals

 Use as Guidance, Not Gospel!  Inexact Science, At Best!  Assumptions  Rate Fluctuations  Rates, Riders, Mid-year Changes  Sliding Scale Based On Usage  Operational Changes  Equipment Performance  Personnel Performance  Emergencies

Address the issues, or bury your head in the sand!

 Estimates Are Indicating That:  Nearly 4% of the nation’s electricity is consumed with respect to water and wastewater facilities  Within the next 15 years, the cost of energy will increase approximately 20%  An increase in utility budgeting will most likely result in increased customer billing charges

 EnergyStar Estimates:  $4 Billion in Annual Energy Costs  Drinking and Waste Water Treatment Combined  56 Billion kWh for Drinking and Waste Water  44.8 Million Tons of Greenhouse Gas

 Estimates Are Indicating That:  Funding programs have more applications and less available money  Commonly, facilities have been designed for peak capacity, not to operate efficiently  Most likely the demographics of your community has changed (up or down)

 Estimates Are Indicating That:  A large percentage of municipal energy use is associated with water and wastewater treatment  Approximately 30-60%of a municipal budget  “If drinking water and wastewater systems reduce energy use by just 10%...collectively they could save approximately $400 million and 5 billion kWh annually”  US EPA – Ensuring a Sustainable Future: An Energy Management Guidebook for Wastewater and Water Utilities

 Specific to Ohio:  Ohio Ranks 6 th in National Energy Consumption  Public Water Systems scored a D+ Grade (US – D-)  Est Billion needed for Infrastructure (POTW)  ARRA Funding est. at 58.5 Million (0.6%)  Public Wastewater Systems scored a D+ Grade  Est Billion needed for Infrastructure (POTW)  Est. 850 Billion Gallons of CSO/yr  Est. 10 Billion Gallons of SSO/yr -ASCE 2009 Ohio Infrastructure Report Card

Understanding of the processes, the equipment, and the regulations is vital to a worthwhile energy audit for water systems…

 Understand Your Billing  Structure (Classification, Tariff, etc.)  Quantities (kW, kWh, kVAR, Power Factor, etc.)  Accuracy (Estimated, Monthly, Yearly Averages)  Understand Your Facility  Processes  Flows  Equipment  Goals

 Your rate structure or classification is your ‘contract’ with the energy provider to reserve ‘capacity’ for your use  If you reserve more, and use less, there is a penalty!  If you reserve less, and use more, there is a penalty!  Demand is measured in kW (kilo-watt)  A 15-minute peak measurement, applied to the whole billing cycle  Energy is measured in kWh (kilo-watt hours)  A cumulative amount over time

 A 60-watt light bulb is turned ‘on’  10-hours per day  5-days per week  The Demand is:  60 watts / 1,000 = 0.06 kW  The Energy Use is:  0.06 kW x 10-hrs = 0.6 kWh/day  0.6 kWh/day x 5-days = 3 kWh/week  3 kWh/week x 52-weeks = 156 kWh/yr

 The bill is typically broken down into:  An Energy Generation Fee  An Energy Transmission Fee  An Energy Distribution Fee  A Customer Charge  All Applicable Riders (‘Special’ Charges)  The Facility Energy Usage Cost  The Facility Demand Charge (if Applicable)  Taxes (if Applicable)

 Don’t Worry About All the Fees!!!  Focus On:  The Facility Energy Usage Cost (Total)  The Facility Demand Charge (if Applicable)

 A Billing Statement Should Include:  Rate Structure, (Tariff or Other)  Energy Use, (kWh for Electricity)  Demand Loading, (kW Demand)  Total Cost, (Generation, Transmission, Distribution, Customer Charge, Riders, Taxes – Combined!)  Service Period (Bills Typically Lag)  Meter Reading Accuracy (Actual vs. Estimated)  Meter Location (Usage Location)  Power Factor (and Power Factor Constant)  Adjustment Notes (Rate Changes, etc.)

Treatment Baseline Graph Baseline is Facility Energy Use, Above Baseline is Winter Heating Use (Gas Usage) Heating Months

Graph is Facility Gas Usage Converted Units to kWh for Comparison

Graph is Exterior Lighting With Optical Sensor

 Energy Usage Summary  Replace Motors with Energy Efficient  Replace Lighting with Energy Efficient  Summary of Estimated Savings  Beneficial…but NOT THOROUGH!!!

 1. The Initial Assessment  Benchmarking  2. The Initial Audit  Energy Use Analysis  3. The Physical Audit  On-Site Walk-Thru  4. The Facility Analysis  Combining the Data  5. The Findings Report

 With ‘Broad’ Facility Data (Facility Survey), Determine Cursory Benchmarks:  Service Population  MG/Yr  Cost ($)/kWh  kWh/MG  Cost ($)/MG  Compare to similar facilities  Compare to similar regions

 Level of Detail in Review  Knowledge of Review Team  Comparable Database  Ability to Provide Alternatives

 Identify the Specific Details for Facility  Energy Use (Quantity and Rates)  Months of Energy Billing Data  Types of Processes  Types of Equipment  Treatment-Related Issues  Regulatory Requirements  Formulate Physical Audit Parameters

 Water Source  Surface vs. Ground Water  Plant Flow/Capacity  Design, Peak, and Actual  Storage Volume  Operating Strategies  Hours, Goals, Quality

 Facility Age  Processes  Service Community  Monthly Operating Reports  Daily Quantities, Testing, Precipitation, etc.  SCADA Data (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)  Contact Information

 Evaluate Facility Performance  Pump Curves (65-80% of Usage – IMPORTANT!)  Water Loss  Water Conservation  System Pressure  Time of Use

 Detailed Energy Usage Summary  Understanding of Existing Equipment  Understanding of Operations and Processes

 Evaluate Equipment  Outdated or Worn  Maintenance Important!  Life-cycle Costs  Improper Controls  Design vs. Actual Usage  Need…  Can You Eliminate?  Can You Adjust?  Can You Reduce?  More Efficient Alternative

 Evaluation of Facility Data  Physical Audit On-Site  Energy Auditor, Engineer, Operator  Team vs. Individual  Experience and ‘Gut’ Reactions  Interview Staff First  They know the facility the best!  Walk the Site as the Water Flows – Top to Bottom  Take Photos for Reference and Documentation

 Facility Analysis and Report Preparation  Follow-up with Staff as Needed  Detail Assumptions and Design Controls  Simple Payback  Findings Presentation and Next Step  Opportunities Explained  Funding Options  Incentives, Grants, Loans  Support

 Can the Facility Do the Following:  E liminate the Equipment?  A djust the Equipment Size/Efficiency?  R educe the Hours of Usage?  T alk to the Energy Providers to Re-Classify?  H abilitate for Alternative Energy Sources?  The ‘ EARTH ’ process can identify energy conservation opportunities (ECO’s)

 Remember the 60-watt light bulb?  10-hours per day, 5-days per week  The Demand is: 0.06 kW  The Energy Use is: 156 kWh/yr  At $0.07/kWh, the Cost is $10.92/yr  (E) – Can you Turn it Off?  (A) – Can you Reduce Wattage?  (R) – Can you use a Sensor?  (T) – Can you change T.O.U.?  (H) – Can you use Alternative Energy?

 Pumps  Water Plant:  Largest Energy User (Approx. 85%)  Wastewater Plant:  Can Be Largest Energy User (Approx. 65%)  Aeration High Energy Consumption  Data to Collect: Manufacturer, Rated Capacity (GPM), Use, Pump Type, Run Time, Associated Motor, Discharge PSI, Head, Throttle/VSD, Shared, Pump Curve

 Pumps  Potential Pump Combinations  2 Smaller to meet Peak flow, can take off-line for Avg.  Minimize Losses  Friction  Head  Efficiency!  Think EARTH!  Pump Slow…Pump Long!

 Motors  Data to Collect: Manufacturer, Location/Process, Drive, Motor Name Plate (horsepower, rpm, efficiency, class, amps, volts, phase), VSD, Hours of Use  Replace: Active vs. Burn Out Costs  Service (Rewinding typ. 1%-2% Efficiency Loss)  Reduce Heat, Increase Efficiency  Think EARTH!

 Lighting (numbers and locations)  Interior Ceiling (T-12, T-8, T-5, LED)  Interior Other (Incandescent, CFL, LED)  Exterior (Hi-Intensity, Hi-Pressure, Low-Pressure)  Sensors (Motion, Optical, Timed)  Rated Watts, Time-of-use, Bulbs/Fixture, Ballast Type  Think EARTH!

 Lighting (options)  Replace HID with T-8 High Bay  Replace HID with T-5 High Output High Bay  Replace T-12 with Low Watt T-8  Use LED in Freezer/Cooler  Re-lamp with 28-Watt T-8 T-12 What Ballast?

 Exit Signs  Incandescent vs. LED  Number of Signs  Think EARTH!

 HVAC  Manufacturer, Size, SEER Rating, Energy Source, Age, Thermostat/Settings, Supplemental Units  Building Envelope  Insulation  Windows  Boilers  Heat Exchangers  Motor/Lighting  Indirect Heat  Think EARTH! HeatCold

 Disinfection (Ultraviolet Light)  Manufacturer, Size, Wattage, Number  Think EARTH!

 Others  Dehumidifiers  Computers  Water Heaters  Dewatering  Odor Control  Think EARTH!

 Others  Storage Tanks/Towers  Pump Stations (WW)  Booster Stations (W)  Vent Fans  Phantom Loading  On vs. Stand-by vs. Off vs. Unplug?

 Team Approach  Certified Operators  Tom Fishbaugh (W/WW)  Larry Baxa (W/WW)  Engineer/Energy Auditor  ‘Divide’ Individual Focus During Audit  ‘Combine’ Findings during Analysis  Minimize Oversight  Minimize Time On-Site  Supt. and Operator Cooperation

 Evaluation of Existing Equipment  Repair vs. Replace Options  Education on Technology and Alternatives  Evaluation of Operations and Processes  Review of Equipment and Process Selection

 Energy Audit, Level I  Cursory Review and Analysis  Broad Generalizations – Low/No Cost  Intended To Be: Brief, Simple, Crude  To Determine if Additional Study is Warranted and/or Required

 Energy Audit, Level II  NOT a Definitive Analysis  Not Investment Grade or Capital Intensive  More In-Depth Than a Level I  Thorough Review of Billing and Equipment  Analysis of Operations and Maintenance  A Broad Range of Savings Options  Detailed Calculations of Opportunities  Declarations of Assumptions and Constraints

 Consistent Format and Presentation  Viable Opportunities  Realistic and Detailed Calculations  Pertinent Information and Recommendations

 Energy Efficiency Can Make a Difference!

 Oopsburgh WTP  Village Population 3,308  Facility Constructed 1993  Production (MGD): 1.0 Design, Actual  Annual Energy Use = 1,009,407 kWh / yr  Annual Energy Cost = $ 67,635 / yr  Average Energy Cost = $ / kWh  Energy Use = 6,897 kWh / MG  Treatment Cost = $ 462 / MG

 Oopsburgh WTP  Initial Assessment:  Small Size  Moderately Aged (over 15 yrs)  Low Energy Cost ( $0.067/kWh ) for Region  Moderate Energy Use ( 6,897 kWh / MG )  High Production Cost ( $462 / MG )

 Oopsburgh WTP  Focused Analysis – Distribution  3 – High Service Pumps, 100-hp, 60-hp, 50-hp  100-hp Pump Used Daily, Throttled Back  Pump Curves Indicated Capacity Same as 60-hp  Main Opportunity  Use 60-hp Pump at 100% (Optimum Efficiency)  A $ 9,275 No-Cost Savings  Maintain Production Volume

 Oopsburgh WTP  Energy Conservation Opportunities  Annual Energy Use = 813,801 kWh / yr  A 195,606 kWh Savings (19%)  Annual Energy Cost = $ 54,010 / yr  A $13,625 /yr Savings (20%)  Energy Use = 5,560 kWh / MG  Treatment Cost = $ 369 / MG  Cost of Opportunities = $10,300  0.76 year Simple Payback

 North Goodland WTP  Village Population 781  Facility Constructed 1993  Production (MGD): 0.35 Design, Actual  Annual Energy Use = 68,151 kWh / yr  Annual Energy Cost = $ 6,730 / yr  Average Energy Cost = $ / kWh  Energy Use = 2,334 kWh / MG  Treatment Cost = $ 230 / MG

 North Goodland WTP  Initial Assessment:  Very Small  Moderately Aged (over 15 yrs)  High Energy Cost ( $0.099/kWh ) for Region  Low Energy Use ( 2,334 kWh / MG )  Low Production Cost ( $ 230 / MG )

 North Goodland WTP  Focused Analysis – Pumping  Time of Use – Off-Peak Potential  Tariff Reclassification  Low Overall Usage – Affects Rate  Main Opportunity  Modify Controls to Pump Off-Peak  A $ 2,720 Low-Cost Savings  Maintain Production Volume

 North Goodland WTP  Energy Conservation Opportunities  Tariff Reclassification  Energy Cost Reduction Estimated at $ / kWh  New Rate Estimated at $0.069 / kWh  Conservative for Off-Peak Rate Structure  Annual Energy Cost = $ 3,784 / yr  A $ 2,946 /yr Savings (44%)

 Lift Valley WWTP  System with Multiple Lift Stations  Duplex, Submersible  Tariff Classifications  Tariff 211 – Small General Service  Usage Billing, No Demand  Tariff 215 – Medium General Service  Use and Demand Billing  Demand Over 10kW / 12-mo Time Period

 Lift Valley WWTP  Medilla Ave Pump Station  Tariff 211 – Small General Service

 Lift Valley WWTP  Maiden Ave Pump Station  Tariff 215 – Medium General Service

 Lift Valley WWTP  Side-By-Side Comparison  Tariff 215 – Tariff 211

 USDA Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI)  13 Communities, 17 Systems  Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)  15 Communities, 23 Systems  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)  4 Communities, 4 Systems  Total  32 Communities, 44 Systems

Water Facilities (6 Total) Avg. Production MGD Existing Conditions Potential Savings (w/ Opportunities) Notable Savings Annual Energy Cost to Produce Water $ 340,784- $ 95, % Annual Energy Use to Produce Water 4,358,506 kWh- 1,040,691 kWh- 23.9% Energy Usage Benchmark5,288 kWh/MG- 1,262 kWh/MG4,026 kWh/MG Production Cost Benchmark$ 413/MG- $ 116/MG$ 297/MG The Average Cost of Energy is $0.078/kWh The Cost to Implement Opportunities is $82,730 The Simple Payback for the Opportunities is 0.86 years March, 2011

Wastewater Facilities (5 Total) Avg. Production 4.0 MGD Existing Conditions Potential Savings (w/ Opportunities) Notable Savings Annual Energy Cost to Treat Wastewater $ 207,501- $ 57, % Annual Energy Use to Treat Wastewater 2,374,174 kWh- 780,248 kWh- 27.1% Energy Usage Benchmark1,993 kWh/MG- 541 kWh/MG1,452 kWh/MG Treatment Cost Benchmark$ 144/MG- $ 40/MG$ 104/MG The Average Cost of Energy is $0.072/kWh The Cost to Implement Opportunities is $65,190 The Simple Payback for the Opportunities is 1.13 years March, 2011

Water and Wastewater (11 Total) Existing Conditions Potential Savings (w/ Opportunities) Notable Savings Annual Energy Cost$ 548,285- $ 153, % Annual Energy Use7,232,680 kWh- 1,820,939 kWh- 25.2% The Cost to Implement Opportunities is $ 147,920 The Cost to Save a kWh is $ 0.081/kWh The Simple Payback for the Opportunities is 0.96 years March, 2011

 Does a Community track their energy use?  months minimum  Have they identified increases in use?  Demand vs. Efficiency  If they have had an audit, did they implement?  Typically less than 20% implement  Typically not all opportunities are addressed  Costs can go up if performed ‘peacemeal’  Only perform if they are ‘Serious’

 Thank you for your interest and attention!