2011 U.S. EPA Region 9 Energy Management Initiative · 2015. 8. 29. · 2011 U.S. EPA Region 9...

2011 U.S. EPA Region 9 Energy Management InitiativeFor Public Wastewater and Drinking Water Utilities

Facilitating Utilities toward Sustainable Energy Management

1

The following table identifies the utilities that participated in the program and provides a summary oftheir results. Many of the projects required no additional resources outside of existing staff time andminor equipment purchases made within existing expense accounts. Some facilities focused on collectingand using renewable energy (specifically energy generated from the force of water dropping in elevationwhile traveling through pipes). Other sites concentrated on reducing energy consumption by increasingenergy efficiency. Some utilities reduced energy use during the day when energy costs more andincreased energy use during times of the day when energy costs less. At several of the facilities,optimizing operations resulted in significant savings without requiring a large capital outlay. Moredetails on the specific projects can be found on the attached case studies developed by the utilities.

Results

initiation of Energy Management System components. Participants were asked to commit to attendinga two-hour monthly webinar and to completing “homework” assignments as required to identify andimplement energy management goals.

Background

Since 2008 U.S. EPA Region 9 (EPA) has been committed to helpingwater and wastewater utilities improve their energy management anddecrease their operating budgets. From 2008 to 2010 EPA devel-oped and conducted free, open-invitation, energy managementworkshops (based on EPA’s Ensuring a Sustainable Future: An EnergyManagement Guidebook for Wastewater and Water Utilities releasedin January 2008) to over 500 water and wastewater utilities associatesin AZ, CA, HI, and NV. In 2011, EPA completed a more comprehensiveone-year pilot program of monthly energy management webinars witheight utilities to help them decrease operating costs, reduce energy orwater use, and/or develop alternative energy sources by implement-ing projects using Environmental Management Systems approaches.The program focused on two approaches: 1) development and imple-mentation of specific on-the-ground projects, and 2) development and

2

Greenhouse GasEmissions Reduced

Annually (metric tonsas CO

2 equivalent)

996

86

172

18

200

90

310

345

0

0

51

2,2682,2682,2682,2682,268

FacilityEnergy Saved

Annually(MWh)

Energy CostsReduced

Annually ($)

1. Chandler Municipal WaterUtilities, Arizona

2. City of Prescott, ArizonaWater Treatment Facility

3. City of Somerton, ArizonaMunicipal Water System

4. County of HawaiiDepartment of WaterSupply, Hawaii

5. Eastern Municipal WaterDistrict – Perris WaterFiltration Plant, California

6. Lake Havasu Port DriveWater Treatment Plant,Arizona

7. Truckee Meadows WaterAuthority, Nevada – ChalkBluff Water Treatment Plantand Highland Canal

8. Tucson Water, Arizona

9. City of Prescott, ArizonaWastewater Treatment Facility

10. City of Somerton, ArizonaWastewater Treatment Plant

T T T T TOOOOOTTTTTALALALALAL:::::

1,450

125

225

290.

130

450

500

0

0

74

3,2443,2443,2443,2443,244

$130,000

12,000

27,000

17,670

36,000

36,765

225,000

60,000

9,000

15,120

29,328

$597,883$597,883$597,883$597,883$597,883

1,965 gallonsof gasoline

saved annually

Summary of On-the-Ground Accomplishments

ProjectDescription

Optimize WaterOperations

In-ConduitHydro Generation

Repair Pumpsand Wells

AutomateWater Reading

In-ConduitHydro Generation

Optimize WaterOperations

• Optimize Time-of-use Capacity

• Water SupplyCapital Improve-ments

Reduce PeakEnergy Demand

Reduce PeakEnergy Demand

Replace Blowers& Diffuser System

(plus gasoline)(plus gasoline)(plus gasoline)(plus gasoline)(plus gasoline)

3

Structure of Monthly Webinars and Commitment of ParticipationThe goal of the program was to move water and wastewater utilities toward sustainable energy management(energy efficiency, conservation, development and independence). We planned to recruit approximately 10utilities with at least one represenative from each of the Region 9 states (Arizona, California, Hawaii, andNevada). Given the geographic distance between participants we used a webinar format, keeping eachsession to two hours and scheduling them once a month over a one year period. We required a letter ofcommitment from the general manager of each utility to (1) ensure their commitment to consider projects thatwere developed during the webinars and (2) authorize staff time to participate in the webinars and develop theprojects. The program content used in the training was based on the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, and Act)systems approach detailed in the EPA Energy Management Guidebook, sharing of ideas and projectaccomplishments, and guest speakers on energy topics.

Webinar ContentAfter a brief introduction, the timing of the content was arranged so priority projects could be identified first toallow most of the year for project implementation. Basic information about each facility was collected prior tobeginning of the first session. Priority setting, scope and fenceline of projects, and ranking criteria werepresented early in the program so utilities could develop Energy Improvement Management Plans and get buy-in from management. Presentations on energy policies, team infrastructure, energy audits, targets andobjectives, performance metrics, accountability, monitoring, training, operational controls, communication,project challenges and successes, progress reporting, and special guest speakers kept participants engagedand focused. Homework assignments were given between the monthly webinars as highlighted below.

Facility Assessments and Planning AssignmentsPPPPProfiles:rofiles:rofiles:rofiles:rofiles: Pre-webinar questionnaire profile forms were required to be completed by each facility sobaseline information was available. Information about the size of the facility, the type of treatmentprocesses, amount of energy used, etc. helped provide a platform upon which the facility would beginits evaluation assessment.

Energy PEnergy PEnergy PEnergy PEnergy Priority Rriority Rriority Rriority Rriority Ranking:anking:anking:anking:anking: To help facilities determine which energy project would be best to implementduring the program, each facility developed and completed an energy priority rank sheet. This includedan identification of criteria specific to their facility to use for determining the overall feasibility andbenefits of each energy project. Each project was assigned a score for each criterion and the individualscores were totaled for each project. The project with the highest score was typically selected for action.Each facility was encouraged to choose a project or projects that would achieve at least a five percentenergy reduction.

Energy Improvement Management Plan (EIMP):Energy Improvement Management Plan (EIMP):Energy Improvement Management Plan (EIMP):Energy Improvement Management Plan (EIMP):Energy Improvement Management Plan (EIMP): Once the project(s) were selected, facilitiesthen prepared an implementation plan using the EIMP format provided from the previously mentionedEPA guidebook. The focus of the EIMP process was to encourage facilities to work through an energyteam and secure management buy-in to ensure all necessary steps and people were included in theplan.

Summary of Energy Improvement Goals:Summary of Energy Improvement Goals:Summary of Energy Improvement Goals:Summary of Energy Improvement Goals:Summary of Energy Improvement Goals: Participants were asked to complete a template thatsummarized the energy improvement goals they hoped to achieve through the program. Simple metricsand a table format were developed to help ensure consistency and to reduce the burden of duplicateand/or excessive reporting.

PPPPPre and Pre and Pre and Pre and Pre and Post Rost Rost Rost Rost Radar Graph Assessment:adar Graph Assessment:adar Graph Assessment:adar Graph Assessment:adar Graph Assessment: Finally, several aspects of each facility’s energy manage-ment system were assessed at the beginning and again near the end of the program. The results of theassessments were depicted using radar graphs to illustrate improvements made during the program.In these diagrams, higher scores represent a stronger energy management system (see examples onthe next page).

4

Example Post Webinar Assessment

Example Pre Webinar Assessment

Facility ProfileChandler Municipal Utilities is located in the City of Chan-dler, Arizona within Maricopa County. The MunicipalUtilities Department oversees wastewater treatment, re-claimed water, and the drinking water supply for the city.The utility selected their potable water system for theEnergy Management Initiative. The Chandler potablewater system serves 255,000 customers. The system treatsan average 52 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater and surface water at two treatment facilities. Theuse of ground water, from 31 wells, requires more energythan surface water from the Salt River Project and CentralAZ Project. Additional energy is needed to bring groundwater to the surface for treatment and distribution.

Baseline DataChandler spent $2.9 million on electricity last year treat-ing potable water. The annual electricity used at the watertreatment facilities is 33,880,000 kilowatt hours (kWh).In 2010 the plant’s energy consumption generated22,268 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2)of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Energy Improvement Management PlanChandler Municipal Utilities chose to reduce energy con-sumption by optimizing the potable water system. They didthis in two ways. First, they revised tank management prac-tices based on hydraulic modeling and master planningto find the best configuration and operating program toreduce ground water pumping. Second, the utility staffupgraded pumps and revised pressure zones to operatemore efficiently under the new operating program. Based

Chandler Municipal Utilities, Arizona



February 21, 2012

on this energy management approach, Chandler’sgoal was to reduce the number of kilowatt hours usedto produce and distribute one million gallons of po-table water by 5% from 2010 levels.

Chandler chose to develop a strong team as an areaof focus for the Energy Management System.

ChallengesOne of the biggest challenges Chandler faced waschanging staff attitudes and long established habitsassociated with operating a small ground water basedsystem – to the practicality of operating a large sur-face water dominated system. A series of small vic-tories led to a staff driven team approach to systemoptimization.

The City of Chandler’s potable water production anddistribution system expanded rapidly to meet thegrowth of the 1990s and early 2000s. Wells andmains were added so the system was able to meet allits demands. The recent economic slow down gaveChandler staff the opportunity to analyze the systemas a whole, rather than a collection of separate parts.Complicating factors included a lack of consistenthistoric design philosophy and evolution of the sys-tem from a small groundwater based utility to a sur-face water dominated system serving a population of250,000 and several major industrial and commer-cial customers.

Surface water is the most cost effective source of wa-ter for Chandler, but due to a lack of dedicated trans-mission infrastructure, staff had a difficult time filingtanks with surface water. Facing budget constraints,staff revisited all aspects of the system. The result was:1) an expanded second pressure zone; 2) consistenthydraulic grade lines for the pressure zones; 3) fo-cused rehabilitation of key facilities; and 4) a new tankmanagement strategy.

During this time the programmable logic controllersthe system used were no longer being supported bythe manufacturer, so they were replaced by control-lers with much better information collection capabili-ties. The new technology gave the operators much

Next StepsStaff are continuing to evaluate system performance andseek additional opportunities for optimization.

Some lighting has been upgraded; more lighting up-grades are planned in the future.

Staff are investigating the feasibility of on-site power gen-eration using solar panels and in-pipe hydraulic powergeneration.

ContactRobert Goff:[email protected]

Chandler fell a bit short of the 5% goal, but wasable to achieve a reduction of 4.2%. They alsoproduced 4.7% more potable water in 2011than they did in 2010. Had Chandler not re-duced the energy necessary to produce anddistribute one million gallons they would haveused an additional 1,445,000 more kilowatthours. Using the average cost per kilowatt hourChandler paid for power in 2011, this amountsto an energy savings of almost $130,000 andavoiding the generation of 950 MTCO2 of GHGemissions.

One aspect of Chandler’s potable water sys-tem optimization approach involved using ahigher percentage of surface water than in pre-vious years. This resulted in substantial savingsin water resource costs, and a significant re-duction in chlorine use.

Chandler adopted a team approach to opti-mization that resulted in a high level of under-standing of system dynamics throughout theorganization, an involved staff that continuallyidentifies ways to improve the efficiency andoperation of the system, improvements in dataacquisition and management, and multipleopen channels of communication.

Annual Energy Savings: 1,445,000 kWh

Annual Cost Savings: $130,000

Annual GHG Reductions: 996MTCO2, equal to the removal of 195 passen-ger vehicles from the road

Project Cost: No additional funds required

Payback Period: Immediate

Accomplishments

better information and control of the system. Given thenew tools, the operators developed and tested new op-eration strategies which have resulted in a more robustsystem that produces better quality water, while usingfewer resources.

Airport Water Reclamation Facility, Prescott, Arizona



February 21, 2012

Facility ProfileThe Airport Water Reclamation Facility (AWRF) is one oftwo facilities owned and operated by the City of Prescott,within Yavapai County. Prescott is positioned close tothe center of Arizona between Phoenix and Flagstaff,just outside the Prescott National Forest. The originalwastewater treatment plant was built in 1978 and re-ceived a major facility upgrade in 1999. The next majorupgrade begins in 2012. The City of Prescott also oper-ates another wastewater treatment plant called Sundog.

Baseline DataAWRF treats 1.1 million gallons of wastewater per dayfor approximately 18,000 residents. The facility spends$160,000 annually on electricity costs and uses 1.8million kilowatt hours (kWh). Greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions from the AWTF are 1,023 metric tons of car-bon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2).

Energy Improvement Management PlanThe City of Prescott elected to construct a hydro turbineelectric generation unit as part of the Energy Improve-ment Management Plan at the Airport Water Reclama-tion Facility to conserve energy and better manageresources. The turbine will be placed at the dischargepoint of the recharge water pipeline to convert the po-tential energy in the flowing water to electricity. This hy-dro turbine has the potential to produce 125,000 kWhper year, which would save the City approximately$12,000 per year.

Next StepsGoing out to bid with the hydro turbine project when themajor upgrade project is ready to bid as well.

ContactScott Gregorio:[email protected]

AccomplishmentsEnergy and cost savings will result with the new hy-dro turbine electric generation unit installation atthe Airport Water Reclamation Facility. This projectis estimated to produce 125,000 kWh and save$12,000 in electrical costs per year. The EnergyManagement Program has promoted an aware-ness of energy uses and potential savings associ-ated with minor and major changes to operations.The program also highlighted many other programs/projects that improved the City’s knowledge of en-ergy saving considerations. The City was success-ful in developing and adopting an Energy Conser-vation Policy.

Annual Projected GHG Reductions: 86MTCO2, equal to the removal of 17 passenger ve-hicles from the road

Project Cost: $25,000

Payback Period: 25 months

ChallengesThe greatest challenge so far has been the time commit-ment required to accomplish the project concurrent withthe design of the facility expansion. Initially, there wasalso some difficulty connecting with the appropriate staffat the power company; however, that has since beenresolved.

1978Built AirportWastewater

Treatment Plant

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

1999Last major facility upgrade

of Airport Facility

2007Energy Audit

1979Built SundogWastewater

Treatment Plant

1989Last major facility upgrade

of Sundog Facility

2012Airport expansionplanned

2016Sundogexpansionplanned

Somerton Municipal Water, Arizona



February 21, 2012

Facility ProfileSomerton Municipal Water is located in the City ofSomerton, Arizona within Yuma County. Yuma Countyis situated in the southwest corner of Arizona close tothe California and Mexico borders. The water treat-ment facility was built in 1985. In 1998 the facility car-ried out a major facility upgrade by installing a new 1.2million gallon storage tank and a new 100 horsepowerbooster pump. The drinking water treatment facility iscalled the Somerton Municipal Water System (System)and it sources water from 3 – 300 ft. deep wells.

Baseline DataThe System serves a population of 14,267 residents andtreats 2 million gallons of water per day (MGD). Ap-proximately 907,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) is used torun the System and it costs an average of $85,000 peryear for electricity. The plant generated 512.79 metrictons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2) of green-house gas (GHG) emissions.

Energy Improvement Management PlanWater treatment plant staff started the energy improve-ment process by first evaluating the energy efficiency ofexisting wells and pumps. Upon inspection, repairs weremade to two wells and three pumps. By fixing the wellsand pumps, Somerton Municipal Water Systems will save$27,000 each year on their electricity bill. Moreover,they will save on average 250,000 kWh annually whichwill result in a reduction in CO2 emissions by an esti-mated 172 MTCO2.

ChallengesIt was difficult to find the time to participate in theEnergy Management Webinar sessions. No additionalstaff resources were available to complete the project.

Well

Storage Tanks

Green Sand Filter Tanks

AccomplishmentsSomerton staff gained a better understanding ofhow projects are selected and increased theireffectiveness in working with management.

By upgrading wells and booster pumps they wereable to save approximately $27,000 per year perpump on energy costs.

Annual Projected GHG Reductions:172 MTCO2, equal to the removal of 34 passen-ger vehicles from the road

Project Cost: $131,203, with $33,500 coveredby incentives

Payback Period: 4 years

ContactLeo Laneli:[email protected]

1985Plant #1 and#2 built.

1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

1998Added 1.2 mg storage

tank and one 100HP booster pump.

2015Futureexpansionplanned.

Next StepsComplete; begin solar project that will produce 1.5million kWh.

Facility ProfileThe Hawaii County Department of Water Supply (DWS)is one of 21 departments within the County of Hawai’i.The County encompasses the entire Island of Hawai‘i ,and the administrative offices are located in Hilo, Hawai’i.The DWS is the public potable water distribution utility;however, the Island of Hawai‘i also has several otherwater systems that are not owned and operated by DWS.Hawai‘i, the largest island in the Hawaiian chain, is 93miles long and 76 miles wide with a land area of ap-proximately 4,030 square miles. The DWS operates andmaintains 67 water sources and almost 2,000 miles ofwater distribution pipeline. Over 90 percent of the wa-ter served is from a groundwater source that requiresminimal treatment with chlorine for disinfection.

Baseline DataThe DWS serves 41,507 customers and produces 31.1million gallons per day. Because of the vast area, moun-tainous terrain of the Island, and the many separate watersources, the energy needed to pump water to the sur-face is significant and facility employees drive a signifi-cant distance to operate the water distribution system.In 2010, the facility spent $16.5 million on energy costs,used 54,781,373 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and

Hawaii County Department of Water Supply



February 21, 2012

95,100 gallons of gas and diesel. Hawai’i County DWSemits an estimated 31,784.35 metric tons of carbondioxide equivalent (MTCO2) of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions.

Energy Improvement Management PlanHawai’i County DWS energy reduction strategy’s maingoal is to reduce gas and diesel consumption. The per-formance target was to reduce fuel purchases by 200gallons per month or 2,400 gallons annually. The tar-get was met by establishing more efficient operators’routes around Hilo, using an automated SCADA sys-tem, and installing GPS equipment in 30 vehicles. Anew automated SCADA system replaced the manual sys-tem. By reducing fuel consumption and increasing effi-ciency, DWS will reduce CO2 emissions by an estimated17.3 TCO2 per year. This project was fully implementedDecember 31, 2011.

DWS also chose to develop an Energy Policy.

ChallengesIntroducing a new automated SCADA system (to re-place the old manual system) required programmingtime, and duplicate systems until the new system wasproven.

The data being collected was all manual until the newvehicle equipment was installed.

DWS decided to purchase vehicle GPS units so a newvehicle policy was needed.

The pilot project modified city of Hilo operators’routes. The pilot project covers about one thirdof the island. Implementing route changes metresistance because operators lost overtime.

Establishing an Energy Management Team wasunsuccessful so the project was implemented byone person, but there were many moving parts.

Next StepsComplete purchase of vehicle GPS systems.

Fully implement project thoughout island which willinclude 100 vehicles.

Begin wind power project to generate renewableenergy.

ContactJulie A. Myhre, P.E.:[email protected]

1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

1905 – 1950’sSurface/spring/tunnel waterdevelopment for agriculture(sugar plantation)

2006Water and

EnergyAudits

2013 &BeyondRepower 1980’sera Wind Farm;expand renew-able energy use

1900s1949

Department of WaterSupply established as a

governmental agency

......

1959Hawai’ì Territorybecame the 50th

State of the U.S.

1969–PresentHigh Elevation Well

development throughoutthe Island of Hawai’i

1985Wind Farm con-

structed to powerfour deep wells

1970–1980Plantation WaterSystems turnedover to DWS

1990sPlantationera ended

2003DWS EnergyManagement

position established2007– 08

Hydro generatorsinstalled

2012Install VehicleMonitoring on allDWS vehicles,replace with fuelefficient vehicles

Created an Energy Policy

Annual Projected Energy Savings: 1,965 gal-lons of gasoline

Annual Overtime Savings: $9,780

Annual Projected Cost Savings: $17,670

Annual Projected GHG Reductions:18 MTCO2, equal to the removal of 3.4 pas-senger vehicles from the road


Payback Period: 1.5 years

Accomplishments

Raw water supply to EMWD’s Perris Valley Wa-ter Filtration Plant is controlled through an ex-isting valve which requires frequent, and costly,replacement. The benefits of this project arethat it will eliminate the need for this replace-ment, and provide the necessary flow controlcapabilities combined with energy generation.

EMWD has contracted with, and completed afeasibility study which shows the viability of theproposed project. The project which is capableof producing nearly 300,000 kWh’s of electric-ity has now completed the design phase. In-cluded in the design are revised cost estimatesand inclusion of hydro-turbine technology thatmeets the unique challenges of this application(low head, with highly variable flow).

Through participation in the energy Manage-ment Webinar series EMWD increased aware-ness of systematic processes for analyzing over-all energy management efforts, and providedstructure and a strategic approach to energymanagement as a whole.

Annual Projected Energy Savings: 290,000kWh

Eastern Municipal Water District, California



February 21, 2012

Facility ProfileEastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has over 250operating facilities that have been constructed over thelast 60 years. EMWD selected a drinking water filtra-tion plant for the Energy Management Initiative. PerrisWater Filtration Plant is located in Perris, California withinRiverside County. Perris is situated southeast of LosAngeles along the Escondido Freeway. The plant treatswater pumped from the Colorado River and/or from theCA State Water Project.

Baseline DataPerris Water Filtration Plant:

Water Treatment Design Capacity: 24 million gal-lons per day (MGD)

Annual Energy Consumption: 5.6 million kilowatthours (kWh)

Annual Cost of Energy: $695,000

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: 3,862 metrictons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2)

Design Average Flow (FY 2011): 10.2 MGD

Energy Improvement Management PlanEMWD chose to reduce their energy consumption andgreenhouse gas emissions by producing renewable en-ergy on site. The municipality will install a RenewablePower Generator (In-Conduit Hydro Generation) at thePerris Water Filtration Plant. The renewable power gen-erator will produce up to 290,000 kWh of energy each

year. The project will take one year to complete oncefunding is secure and will cost approximately $350,000.

ChallengesChallenges associated with the proposed project includeidentifying hydro-generation technology capable of meet-ing the low head pressure and varying flow conditionsexisting at the Perris Water Filtration Plant. These weretechnical challenges that were eventually overcome.

Also, a grant application for funding from the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation was not funded, but EMWDobtained feedback on the proposal and will fund theproject without a grant.

Accomplishments

Next StepsBoard approval of funding, go out to bid.

ContactDan Howell:[email protected]


Annual Projected GHG Reductions:200 MTCO2, equal to the removal of 39 pas-senger vehicles from the road


Payback Period: 5 years (factoring in the needto replace an existing, non-energy generatingvalve; 10 years (if valve didn’t need to be re-placed)

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

1952 - PresentEMWD has constructed and operates over 250 water,wastewater, and recycling water facilities over a 550square mile service area of Western Riverside County

2012Hydro-turbinegeneratorconstruction

2012Expansionto 24 MGD

2005Perris Water Filtration

constructed (10 MGD)

2009Expansioncompleted

to 20 MGD

Port Drive Water Treatment Plant, Lake Havasu, Arizona



February 21, 2012

Facility ProfilePort Drive Water Treatment Plant (PDWTP) is located inMohave County, Arizona and serves the majority of thepopulation of Lake Havasu City (City). The city is lo-cated along the Colorado River on the eastern shores ofLake Havasu. The water treatment plant was built be-tween the years of 2002 and 2004 and has neverreceived a major facility upgrade. Currently, an estimat-ed 86% of the water treated is sourced from ground-water wells and a small percentage comes directly fromLake Havasu.

Baseline DataPDWTP uses a natural biological process to remove ironand manganese from 11 million gallons of water perday. The treated drinking water is then distributed to50,000 customers. Annually, the plant uses 6,636,960kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy at a cost of $612,749to the City each year. This equates to 4,577 metric tonsof carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2) of greenhousegas (GHG) emissions.

Energy Improvement Management PlanLake Havasu City Water Treatment Plant staff, encour-aged by the EPA Webinar series, completed a test“Change in Operations” of the North and South HighService Pump Station.

ChallengesOverall, since the 2009 recession, one major challlengeto any non-core activity – including this effort – has beena lack of personnel resources. Despite these challeng-es, the City was able to implement small incrementalchanges. A major benefit to the City was the realizationthat those changes can and will be valuable in thefuture. This was seen in the demonstration project de-scribed in more detail in the accomplishments section.The lack of staff hours prevented the City from movingforward with an Energy Improvement Plan. This alsodelayed the implementation of a pump study until No-vember 2011 which should result in some energy sav-ings in 2012.

AccomplishmentsThe City changed how much and when water wouldbe released at each lead pump. The lead pump foreach system was changed to operate at full waterflow until it reached the turn off level setpoint. Priorto this, the variable frequency drive (VFD) controllerwas programmed to slow the lead pump at a nearlyfull tank level to provide continuous flow throughthe WTP process.

This change resulted in an average 8.7% ener-gy reduction in pump stations for the months ofMarch, April and May.

For the months of June, July and August, the aver-age energy reduction was 6% for the North Pumps,and 6.7% for the South, compared to the samemonths in 2010. There was no change in thewater quality or ability to supply water on demandwith these changes.

All light fixtures were replaced.

In the last 10-12 years, increases in electric costshave not been passed on to users. Last year therewas a 24% rate hike, but Lake Havasu reducedenergy use by 30%.

In addition to the test project, Lake Havasu Cityqualified for an energy audit which was conductedfor the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plantby a consultant funded through the EPA. This re-sulted in a draft report submitted to Lake HavasuCity in September 2011. The report identified 7future projects that may be scheduled in the future.Many of the suggestions in the report may be rel-evant to Lake Havasu City’s other treatment plants.Approximately 4 million gallons a day of waste-water is treated by these facilities.

The anticipated energy savings at the Lake HavasuCity Water Treatment Plant should equate to ap-proximately 130,000 kWh annually.

Annual Projected GHG Reductions: 90MTCO2, equal to the removal of 18 passengervehicles from the road

Project Cost: Zero

Payback Period: Zero

Next StepsTest savings of 6-8.7% during the next 6 months; imple-ment energy audti recommendations. All parts of theplant are being examined for energy saving opportuni-ties.

ContactMark W. Clark:[email protected]

The first strategy is to optimize time-of-use operatingprocedures by creating a mass flow/electric cost modelof the treatment and effluent pumping processes. Themodel will be used to predict how changes to theoperating procedure will affect electricity cost. In2010, TMWA spent $938,000 on 7.8 GWh for non-water supply processes at the plant. This projectintended to reduce non-supply electric costs by 15%or $141,000.

The second project involves water supply improve-ments to the Highland Canal which transports 90%of Chalk Bluff’s water directly to the plant using grav-ity. The improvement plan will allow 100% of the waterto be brought to the plant using the Highland Canaland meets multiple objectives. Improvements will bemade during winter months when customer waterdemands are lowest to reduce the water supply pump-ing costs during construction. Currently, TMWAspends $60,000 on 0.5 GWh for water supplypumping at the Chalk Bluff Plant. Energy use will bezero when the project is complete. The design lifeof the new infrastructure is over 100 years and it willrequire no energy to operate.

ChallengesOriginally scheduled to begin construction during thefall of 2011, delays in obtaining highway encroachmentpermits has postponed construction. To minimize watersupply pumping costs during construction and there-fore continue to reduce energy costs, this project hasbeen delayed until the fall of 2012.

TMWA attempted to use a mass balance/electric costmodel to optimize time-of-use operating procedures.However, the mass balance/electric cost model is notcapable of the sophisticated decision making used bythe experienced water plant operators. Therefore, thepurpose of the model has shifted from generating deci-sions to being one of several techniques useful for im-proving time-of-use energy optimization at the ChalkBluff Plant.

Facility ProfileTruckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) has chosenits drinking water facility, Chalk Bluff Water TreatmentPlant, for the Energy Management Initiative. The plantwas built in 1994 and serves more than 330,000 cus-tomers throughout 110 square miles within WashoeCounty, Nevada. The Chalk Bluff Plant treats water fromthe Truckee River, which flows from Lake Tahoe and theSierra Nevada mountain range.

Baseline DataTMWA serves 93,000 customer connections. In 2009the water authority spent just under $7 million on elec-tricity and $88,000 on natural gas. The Chalk BluffWater Treatment Plant uses 13.5 gigawatt hours (GWh)and 74,452 therms per year, and spends $1.35 millionfor electricity. The total energy use results in estimat-ed annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 9,309metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2).

Energy Improvement Management PlanWhile TMWA relies on gravity as much as possible, in amountainous community, pumping water is a reality. TheChalk Bluff Plant is TMWA’s largest water producer andhighest energy use facility. The high energy use is due tothe pumping of water uphill from the river into the plant.To reduce energy consumption at Chalk Bluff, the imple-mentation plan consists of two parts: (1) optimizing thetime-of-use operating procedures, and (2) water supplycapital improvements.

Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Reno, Nevada

2011 U.S. EPA Region 9 Energy ManagementInitiative For Public Wastewater and Drinking

Water Utilities Facilitating Utilities towardSustainable Energy Management

February 21, 2012

1)

2)

Next Steps1) Complete; continue to optimize and track project

results.

2) Get permits; construction.

ContactKeith [email protected]

AccomplishmentsTMWA began setting and tracking time-of-use electricity goals for the Chalk Bluff Plant inNovember of 2010. The goals depend on timeof day (e.g., 200 kW On-Peak, 400 kW Mid-Peak, and 950 kW Off-Peak), and vary withseason, based on the electric utility’s tariffs.Water Plant operators have the ability to be in-novative in order to meet electricity use goalsand system demands. The mass balance/elec-tric cost modeling effort was valuable to estab-lish baseline energy usage by (1) formally in-ventorying energy intensive unit processes, (2)establishing kW draw of equipment, (3) estab-lishing and ranking historic kWh usage of equip-ment, and (4) suggesting starting point kW tar-gets for further optimization by operators.

TMWA considers the time-of-use optimizationproject a great success due to its ability to saveenergy costs, and will continue to optimize andtrack the project’s results. For the 12 monthsfrom November 2010 through October 2011the time-of-use optimization has saved more than$225,000 (24.4%) compared to the same pe-riod the previous year. During this time electricenergy usage was reduced by only 0.45 GWh(5.8%), indicating the savings was primarily dueto improved time-of-use cost management.

Going through the process of identifying energyneeds of each process was eye opening. Talk-ing to the operators and getting them to worktoward the time of use goals was educational,engaging, and strengthened the team.

1)

2)

1861Presentbuilt

1860s 2010s 2020s 2030s

2010Last majorfacility upgrade

..... 2000s1990s

2024Sparks GWTPfuture expansionplanned

1994Chalk BluffWater TreatmentPlant built

2037Chalk Bluff

future expansionplanned

2001TMWA formedand takes controlof water system


Project Cost: Zero


Design is substantially complete for the watersupply improvement project, and highway en-croachment permits are expected in time for theproject to proceed in the fall of 2012.


Project Cost: $3,000,000


Tucson Water, Arizona



February 21, 2012

Energy Improvement Management PlanTucson Water is partnering with Tucson Electric Power(TEP), a privately-held, regulated electric utility, to reducepeak demand. TEP contracted EnerNOC to facilitate anew demand management program to reduce the en-ergy load during peak hours. EnerNOC will pay cus-tomers to shed the load. Tucson Water will participateby identifying sites that are appropriate for load shed-ding. It has been estimated that the program will saveTucson Water 24,000 kWh during peak energy use andcreate $9,000 in offsetting revenue to be put towardsenergy cost.

As part of the City of Tucson’s award under the Depart-ment of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and ConservationBlock Grant (funded by the American Recovery and Re-investment Act), Tucson Water is implementing a WaterSystem Distribution Pump Efficiency Project. The projectis designed to establish baseline data and data man-agement tools for system booster pumps, provide en-ergy savings recommendations for the distribution sys-tem, and implement prioritized energy-savings upgrades.In addition, training will be provided and results fromthe project will provide actionable information on thecost effectiveness of continuing a program without grantfunding. Projected energy and cost savings for the projectare 350,000 kWh and $30,000 (year one, post project).The project is scheduled to be completed in early fall of2012.

ChallengesIt was difficult to complete the project within one year. Atwo-year program would have given more time to imple-ment the project in our Energy Management Plan.

Facility ProfileTucson Water provides clean drinking water to a 330square-mile service area in Tucson, Arizona. Locatedwithin Pima County, Tucson is positioned along highway10 about 70 miles north of the U.S./Mexico border. Thepotable water system serves roughly 85% of the Tucsonmetropolitan area, serving 228,000 customers. Thepotable system includes 212 production wells, 65 wa-ter storage facilities and over 100 distribution pumps.A separate reclaimed water system serves parks, golfcourses and other turf irrigation. Tucson Water sourcesdrinking water through groundwater and the the Colo-rado River, by recharging and recovering river water de-livered through the Central Arizona Project. TucsonWater uses recycled water for its reclaimed water sys-tem.

Baseline DataTucson Water spends on average $13.5 million on theenergy to operate its potable system and producesapproximately 110 million gallons per day of potablewater per year. Annually, Tucson Water uses approxi-mately 115,000,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) and5,000,000 therms of energy to run the system. Thisenergy use results in an estimated 83,367,43 metrictons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2) of green-house gas (GHG) emissions.

In addition to the projected $9,000 cost sav-ings of the EnerNOC program, energy data willinform any plans to expand real-time energymonitoring. At the end of the grant-fundedbooster pump project, the utility will realize en-ergy and cost savings and have the informationnecessary to scope a more permanent pumpefficiency program.

Accomplishments

Next StepsThe peak demand project is complete. Tucson will con-tinue implementing an ARRA funded Pump Efficiencyproject that is estimated to save $30,000 and 350,000kWh per year.

ContactAsia Philbin:[email protected]

Annual Projected Energy Savings: 24,000 kWhduring peak energy use periods


Annual Projected GHG Reductions:None

Project Cost: Zero


Chino Water Production Facility, Prescott, Arizona



February 21, 2012

Facility ProfileThe Prescott - Chino Water Production Facility (Facility) islocated within Yavapai County in the town of Chino Val-ley, Arizona. Prescott is positioned close to the center ofArizona between Phoenix and Flagstaff just outside thePrescott National Forest. The Facility consists of a pro-duction well field, reservoir, and booster pump facility.The Facility was built in 1947 and received its last majorfacility upgrade in 2004.

Baseline DataThe Facility supplies 50,000 residents with drinking wa-ter. During the winter the plant treats 4.5 million gallonsof water per day and peaks at 12 million gallons duringthe summer. The cost of electricity for the plant is$1,600,000 for 11,000,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) peryear. Annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are7,581 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2).

Energy Improvement Management PlanThe Facility has wells that are 15 miles north and lowerin elevation than the treatment plant. The challenge wasto reduce the $2,000/month demand charge. The En-ergy Management Plan for the Facility includes replac-ing the existing step voltage starts on three wells withsoft start units. The soft start units will reduce the in-stantaneous demand on the power supply which willreduce the demand charge on the utility bill. It will alsohelp to reduce the power surge on the power distribu-tion system. In addition, soft starters help to extend thelife of the well motors. Overall, the project will save money

and electricity through reduced demand charge, energyuse and maintenance. The estimated immediate costsavings associated with the reduced demand is $1,260/month, for a total savings of $15,120/year. The sav-ings toward the maintenance and reduced strain on theelectrical distribution system will be a long term progres-sive savings.

ChallengesThe main challenge has been the loss of two membersof the City’s Energy Management Team, which reducedmanagement support and buy-in from staff. This de-layed the ultimate implementation and construction ofthe soft-start project.

AccomplishmentsAs the City neared the end of the program, theproject gained acceptance. The City has completeda specification package and will soon advertise forconstruction.

The Energy Management Program has promotedan awareness of the City’s energy use and poten-tial savings associated with minor or major changesto operations. It has provided a good networkingopportunity to learn, expand concepts, and con-sider new options. This project will reduce directelectrical costs, long term maintenance costs, andresult in unseen benefits like improved safety due toreduced instantaneous electrical demands. TheEnergy Management Webinar program also high-lighted many other programs/projects that im-proved the City’s awareness of energy savings. TheCity has implemented a new Energy ConservationPolicy.

Annual Projected GHG Reductions:None


Payback Period: 34 months

ContactCraig Dotseth:[email protected]

1974Chino WaterTreatment Plant

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

2004Last major facility

upgrade of Chino Plant

2007Energy Audit

2015Chinoexpansionplanned

Next StepsAdvertise for construction.

Begin 2 megawatt solar generation project to offset30% of water booster costs.

Somerton Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant, Arizona



February 21, 2012

Baseline DataSomerton Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant servesa population of 14,296 residents. The wastewater treat-ment plant treats a daily average of .750 MGD of waste-water each day, and uses approximately 744,480 kilo-watt hours (kWh) per year, that generates 32 metric tonsof carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2) of greenhousegas (GHG) emissions.

Energy Improvement Management PlanThe objective of Somerton Municipal Wastewater Treat-ment plant is to save energy by running a more efficientplant. The City achieved this by replacing four old blow-ers used to run the 4-tank aeration system with two newmore efficient blowers. (Current system only needs 1new blower). The City also replaced an old diffuser sys-tem with one high efficiency diffuser. In addition, twoold blowers were replaced, one for the digester and one

Facility ProfileThe Somerton Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant islocated in the city of Somerton within Yuma County, Ari-zona. Somerton is positioned along Highway 95, closeto the border of California and Mexico. The wastewatertreatment plant was built in 1985 and received its lastmajor facility upgraded in 2011, when it was changedfrom a Sequenching Batch Reactor (SBR) facility with acapacity to treat .8 million gallons per day (MGD) to aMLE (Modified Ludzack-Ettinger) process with a capac-ity of 1.8 MGD.

ChallengesOriginally the Energy Improvement Management Plancalled for doubling the number of tanks in the existingSBR system. It was later determined that by using moreefficient diffusers and Turbo blowers, the same numberof tanks could be kept by changing the process. Thisresulted in keeping the same footprint and more thandoubling capacity while reducing energy use by 10%.

spare, with one high efficiency blower. Overall, the up-grades are expected to save the wastewater treatmentplant 10% on their annual electricity bill and reduce theirelectricity use by 6%, while doubling the capacity of thefacility.

New Diffusers

Old Blowers

New Blower

AccomplishmentsParticipating in the Energy Webinar Series increasedthe awareness of staff of the decision making pro-cess and the importance of their involvement. Eventhough the expansion is still not complete, the plantsucceeded in reducing electricity usage by 12% andcosts by 11.4%, while doubling treatment capac-ity.


Annual Projected GHG Reductions:51 MTCO2, equal to the removal of 10 passengervehicles from the road



Next StepsBegin a 1.5 million kWh solar project.

ContactJose Palomares:[email protected]

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

2011.8 MGD SBRupgraded to1.8 MGD MLEfacility

1955Wastewater facilitystarted as a 3-pondlagoon system

1977New aerationmixers added

2006.8 MGD SBR

facility in operation

2011 U.S. EPA Region 9 Energy Management Initiative · 2015. 8. 29. · 2011 U.S. EPA Region 9...

Documents

Transcript of 2011 U.S. EPA Region 9 Energy Management Initiative · 2015. 8. 29. · 2011 U.S. EPA Region 9...