Summary
Report
2009-2011 Indiana
Energy Management
Pilot
EPA REGION 5
APRIL 2012
s>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES 3
LIST OF TABLES 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4
DISCLAIMER 4
1. INTRODUCTION 5
Pilot background 5
Pilot utilities 6
Schedule and expectations 6
Outputs 6
2. OUTCOMES 10
Improved proficiency and awareness 10
Less energy use resulting in cost savings and less green house gas (GHG) 10
Better energy performance 11
3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
Six questions are at the core of energy management 15
In-house staff: a resource for assessing energy use and opportunities 15
Energy data should be well documented for quality assurance 17
Energy conservation measures range from no cost to high cost 19
Energy teams need access to training and resources 19
A menu or checklist can simplify the Plan-stage 21
Utilities helped clarify aspects of the Guidebook 21
Energy metering is usually plant-wide and influences the fenceline 24
Portfolio Manager is not fully enabled for water utilities 26
New short guides, templates and examples supplement the Guidebook 29
4. CONCLUSION 29
ATTACHMENT 1. LIST OF ACRONYMS IN THIS REPORT 31
ATTACHMENT 2. PORTFOLIO MANAGER SUMMARY TABLES (WASTEWATER) 32
ATTACHMENT 3. SUMMARY TABLES FOR DRINKING WATER UTILITIES 34
ATTACHMENT 4. CRITICAL REVIEW OF GUIDEBOOK TABLES 35
ATTACHMENT 5. MONTHLY PROFILES AT 2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 42
ATTACHMENT 6. FORMAT FOR A CUMULATIVE ANNUAL REPORT 43
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Indiana Workshop Announcement 7
Figure 2. Pilot Utility Location 8
Figure 3. Pilot Schedule 9
Figure 4. Post-pilot Self-assessment 10
Figure 5. Pre- and Post-pilot Energy Performance Rating 13
Figure 6. Pre- and Post-pilot Energy Intensity 14
Figure 7. Lafayette Flow and Energy Trends 18
Figure 8. Checklist / Menu of Plan Stage Activities 22
Figure 9. Fencelines for Mishawaka (left) and Lafayette (right) 26
Figure 10. Space Types Eligible for Energy Star 27
Figure 11. Energy Performance Statement 28
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Energy, Cost, and GHG Outcomes 12
Table 2. Six Core Energy Management Questions 16
Table 3. ECM and Cost Range 20
Table 4. Energy Improvement Action Plan 23
Table 5. Activity and Operation 25
Table 6. New Resources for Energy Management: A Supplement to the Guidebook 30
-------
Acknowledgement
This report was prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 with
assistance from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). EPA and
IDEM gratefully acknowledge the 10 Pilot utilities which completed the two-year Indiana
Energy Management Pilot on which this report is based. Their participation and thoughtful
feedback throughout are a clear demonstration of a commitment to continuous energy
improvement and leadership in drinking water and wastewater treatment. We also acknowledge
the participation of three Indiana utilities that began the Pilot but for various reasons did not see
it through to completion. Project Managers were Louann Unger (EPA) and Jennifer Schick
(IDEM).
Disclaimer
This paper was prepared as the result of work by one or more members of the staff of the
EPA Region 5 with technical support by IDEM. It does not necessarily represent the views of
EPA, IDEM or the drinking water and wastewater utilities identified herein. EPA makes no
warrant, express or implied, and assumes no legal liability for the information in this paper, nor
does any party represent that this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights.
-------
1. Introduction
This summary report presents an overview of the 2009-2011 Indiana Energy Management Pilot
conducted by EPA Region 5 and IDEM, and completed by 10 drinking water and wastewater
public utilities (Pilot utilities). This introductory section describes the Pilot background and
approach taken. Section 2 documents outcomes in terms of utility competence and energy usage.
Section 3 presents findings and recommendations, including a list of six competencies for energy
management. Text boxes throughout the report are remarks from Pilot utilities.
Energy is a large operating expense for water utilities, typically second only to salary. The Pilot
applies the EPA Energy Management Guidebook for Drinking Water and Wastewater Utilities
{Guidebook) by walking through the Guidebook's step-by-step process to improve energy
efficiency At the group level, the 10 Pilot utilities reported an annual energy cost saving of over
$234,669 from a simple comparison of pre- to post-pilot energy bills.1 This is 6 per cent less than
pre-Pilot energy bills, a saving that took place as the price of electricity steadily increased and
natural gas prices fell. Over the same two years, the group consumed 15 percent less electricity
and 34 percent less natural gas. These reductions equate to 5.5 metric tons of greenhouse gas
(GHG) avoided annually, roughly the amount of carbon dioxide (C02) emitted from electricity
used annually by 678 homes.3
Pilot background
A need to help public water utilities reduce energy use and cost and ensure the sustainability of
their operations prompted EPA in 2008 to publish the Guidebook. Built around a Plan-Do-
Check-Act (PDCA) management systems framework, the Guidebook describes an adaptive
approach for utilities, large and small, to identify opportunities to improve their energy
efficiency while still producing clean and safe water. Experience from utilities has shown the
approach described in the Guidebook can result in substantial energy improvement.
EPA held workshops across the country to provide outreach on energy management and
introduce the Guidebook. Figure 1 is an announcement for the "Innovative Energy Management
Workshop" which EPA held at Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana on October 29, 2008.
The Purdue event engaged about 90 water utility managers, operators and consultants in group
discussions and problem-solving exercises. The workshop was well received and many attendees
expressed interest in "follow-on assistance" from EPA and states. In the following weeks, the
EPA Region 5 office in Chicago made phone calls to workshop attendees and identified a group
interested in applying the Guidebook at their facilities. The project was called a Pilot because
this approach, use of the Guidebook, had not been tried before in Indiana.
1 Meaning dollars are not adjusted for inflation but represent the actual dollars billed, and they include charges that
appear on the bills other than energy unit charges.
2 The group encompassed the service area of several power companies. The price per kWh and therm varies by
location. It was estimated that natural gas decreased from about 13.7 cents (2008) to 8.6 cents (2011) per therm or a
change of about -37% . Electricity increased from about 13.4 cents (2008) to 15.8 cents (2011) per kWh or a
change of about +18%
3 http://www.epa.gOv/cleanenergv/energy-resources/calculator.html#results
5
-------
Pilot utilities
Figure 2 shows the location of the ten Pilot utilities. Wastewater Pilot utilities ranged from about
2 to 19 million gallons per day (MGD), actual average flow. Drinking water Pilot utilities
ranged from 4 to 14 MGD average finished water flow. Each was represented at the October 29,
2008 workshop and entered the Pilot with a basic understanding of the Guidebook. Pilot utilities
received no monetary compensation for their participation in the Pilot. Energy management
technical assistance was provided during year one by Global Environment Technology
Foundation (GETF) through a contract with EPA"s Office of Water. GETF support continued
during year two under IDEM pollution prevention grant SRA X900E00322-0. As co-author of
the Guidebook and an instructor at the October 29, 2008 workshop, GETF is uniquely qualified
for the Pilot: GETF brought structure and focus to energy management system development, led
conference calls, and as a result of the Pilot developed Guidebook short guides, management
procedures, and sample energy management system manuals.
Schedule and expectations
Because PDCA is an organizing principle of the Guidebook, it made sense to structure the Pilot
using PDCA. As shown in Figure 3, the Pilot"sfirst 12 months covered "Plan" (top 5 boxes), the
next six months involved "Do" (6th box), and the concluding six months covered "Check/Act."
The Pilot started with a kickoff workshop on September 30, 2009 in Indianapolis, Indiana.
When the kickoff was being organized, Pilot utilities reported that despite initially receiving the
Guidebook in 2008 they had made no concerted effort to apply it at their plants. The kick-off
included a refresher on the Guidebook along with an outline of Pilot activities. Pilot utilities
were asked to:
• Work through and provide feedback on the Guidebook
• Share information about progress in energy management using the Guidebook approach
• Report on energy use and cost, preferably by entering data into an ENERGY STAR™
Portfolio Manager account
• Develop an energy improvement action plan (IAP) for at least one energy conservation
measure (ECM)
• Submit a success story describing an activity completed during the Pilot.
Outputs
This section lists the reports and fact sheets that resulted from the Pilot.
• This report provides an overall summary of the pilot.
• Fact Sheets for each Pilot utility describe the utility and its energy progress
• Short Guides with templates to supplement the Guidebook The short guides and
templates were developed with input from Pilot utilities.
• Two Energy Management System Manuals show what Guidebook tables and short-guide
templates look like when filled in with water utility data. The manuals also show how
Guidebook outputs can fit together in one document.
4 See Section 3.8 for a list of ECMs implemented or underway by Pilot utilities.
~6T
-------
EPA's Office of Water and Region 5
wit sponsor an
Innouatiue
Energy management
Workshop
October 29,2008
Purdue Uniuersity—Steuiart Center
West Lafayette, Indiana
8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
r
| How to Reduce Energy
Use and Increase Savings
for Water and Wastewater
Treatment Plants in
Indiana
Figure 1. Indiana Workshop Announcement
-------
2009-2011 Indiana Energy Management
Pilot Project for
Public Wastewater and Drinking Water Facilities
Mishawaka Drinking Water .^Hwishawaka WWTP
Valparaiso WVW^g
Valparaiso Drinking Water
Angola WWTP
West Lafayette WWTP
Legend
~ Drinking Water
Wastewater
Bloomington WWTP
b0 Miles
I F I |
20 Kilometers
Mapped B>: Br* :l I. Jchnson III
OHM ofPcflulon Preventon aril "Technical Ai ill Bret
la st Rtvie*4:2fl."¦3012
Map Proteo'tlon : UTM "one 10 I M«» D
Figure 2. Pilot Utility Location
8
-------
~
~
~
~
October - March 2011
DEVELOP AN ENERGY BASELINE
April-June 2011
ESTABLISH ENERGY IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES AND MEASURABLE TARGETS
DOCUMENT ACTION PLANS TO ACHIEVE TARGETS
ENERGY POLICY
IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE ENERGY USE IN ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS
CONDUCT A MANAGEMENT REVIEW (8/Z3/ll>
•APPLY LESSONS LEARNED
•EXPAND INVOLVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND STAFF
•COMMUNICATE SUCCESS
IMPLEMENT ENERGY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
• DOCUMENT OPERATIONAL CONTROLS (11/30/10)
- COMPETENCY AND AWARENESS TRAINING (1/11/11)
• INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION (2/15/11)
¦ DOCUMENT AND RECORD CONTROL (3/22/11)
MONITOR AND MEASURE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
* PROGRESS ON ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS (4/19/11)
< EFFICIENCY OF EQUIPMENT (4/19/11)
¦ STATUS OF ENERGY RELATED REGULATORY COMPLIANCE (4/19/11)
APPLY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WHERE NECESSARY (5/24/11}
Figure 3. Pilot Schedule
-------
2. Outcomes
The Pilot was a practical opportunity to track water utilities" progress over multiple years as they
managed energy. The following three outcomes highlight how the Pilot utilities improved. The
Pilot does not pretend to take full credit for these improvements. Its purpose is to document
changes that took place during the Pilot timeframe (2008 to 2011) in terms of Pilot utility
proficiency and awareness, energy use (with cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions), and
energy performance.
Improved proficiency and awareness
As the Pilot concluded, Pilot utilities were asked to complete a self-assessment by scoring
themselves from 1 (low) to 15 (high) in the following 10 areas: audit, benchmarking/tracking
energy use, energy policy, energy goals, energy management action plans (or EIP), training &
awareness, standard operating procedures (SOPs)/operational controls, measurement (of energy
management progress), adoption of PDCA management system, and renewable sources of
energy.5 The chart in Figure 4 depicts average scores of the five Pilot utilities that responded.
Benchmarking and tracking energy use are the greatest strengths. The nine remaining topics are
evenly ranked at around 10, suggesting comfort with accomplishments coupled with awareness
of room for improvement.
Renewable Sources of Energy
inch-marking Tracking Energy Use
Adoption of Plan-Do-Check-Act.
Management Systems
Measurement
SOPs Operational Controls
Energy Management Action Plans
Training & Awareness
Figure 4. Post-pilot Self-assessment
Less energy use resulting in cost savings and less green house gas (GHG)
Pilot utilities reported energy, flow and energy-related costs continuously beginning with a
baseline or "pre-pilot" period of 2008, except for the Mishawaka wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) which upgraded in 2008 and used 2009 as a baseline. As a benchmark for measuring
progress, Pilot utilities relied on the "post pilot" year of 2011. 6 Energy and cost data are from
5 "Energy Management Self-Assessment Tool for Water and Wastewater Utilities". Developed by Madeline Snow,
UMass Lowell EMS Service Program, in partnership with the Global Environment & Technology Foundation.
Funded by the U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater. December 2011.
6 Post-pilot is a misnomer since many Pilot utilities were still completing their ECMs when the Pilot concluded in
October 2011. There is every expectation that energy performance will continue to improve beyond calendar year
2011.
10
-------
power company bills while flow is from water-utility-owned meters. Utilities shared their data
with EPA and IDEM through a shared Portfolio Manager account or by email.
Table 1 is a summary of energy, cost and greenhouse gas outcomes at each Pilot utility. At the
group level, Pilot utilities reduced electrical energy use by 6.5 gigawatt-hours (gWh) and cut
natural gas use by about 192,000 therms. They paid about $234,000 less for electricity and
natural gas in 2011 compared to the 2008/2009 baseline, equivalent to an average annual
reduction of $23,400 per utility. A detailed investigation of energy prices and billing structure
was beyond the scope of the Pilot. Therefore, cost savings shown in Table 1 are based on a
simple comparison of energy bills and not adjusted for inflation or energy prices changes
between 2008 and 2011. During the Pilot timeframe, the price per kilowatt-hours (kWh)
increased up to 18% while natural gas prices declined by roughly 37%.
GHG is emitted from the power plant that produces electricity and emitted by combustion of
natural gas at the Pilot utility. Reductions in kWh and therms translate to a GHG reduction of
over 5,400 metric tons C02 equivalent (mtC02e) annually. GHG results are reported from
EP A" s Energy Star™ Portfolio Manager (Portfolio Manager) for each wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP). For the drinking water plant (DWP), GHG was calculated according to the same
Portfolio Manager methodology as described by EPA (March 2011).
Better energy performance
Table 5 is an overall summary of energy, cost, and GHG avoided for all Pilot utilities. Electrical
energy intensity improved for eight of the utilities. All ten Pilot utilities reduced natural gas
consumption and nine reduced electrical consumption.
The far right columns of Table 5 show energy performance quantified in two ways: (1) as a
performance rating calculated in Portfolio Manager, and (2) as energy intensity. The
performance rating is a score from 1 (worst) to 100 (best).9 It takes into consideration both
natural gas and electrical use consumption (provided data for both are entered into the Portfolio
Manager database). As discussed further in Section 3 of this report, the rating is not available for
DWPs. Electrical energy intensity is the amount of electrical energy consumed per million
gallons (MG) of clean water produced. As the name implies, electrical energy intensity does not
include natural gas consumption.
Figure 5 compares pre- and post-Pilot performance rating for the WWTPs. Performance ratings
increased from 10 to 51 points with more than half of the WWTPs ending the Pilot with scores
over 75, putting them in the upper quartile of energy performers according to National
statistics.10 Figure 6 shows pre- and post-Pilot electrical energy intensity (kWh/MG) for all Pilot
utilities except two. Two studies were used as external benchmarks, to compare the Pilot utilities
energy intensity (Figure 6) against similar plants: a 2006 Focus on Energy report of wastewater
7 Valparaiso Flint Lake energy cost is electrical use only.
8 U.S. EPA (2011) ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Methodology for Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Tracking
Calculations.
9 Portfolio Manger is available at https ://www. energystar. gov
111 See Attachment 2 for a snapshot of Portfolio Manager outputs for each wastewater utility.
11
-------
utilities in Wisconsin, and a 2012 American Water Works Association (AWWA) report on
11 12
drinking water utilities in the Chicago area. '
• Focus on Energy summarizes electrical intensity from about 100 activated sludge
WWTPs in Wisconsin treating over 1 MGD. Wastewater Pilot utilities are similar to that
group in that they use activated sludge and treat over 1 MGD. By comparison, top
quartile performers in the Wisconsin group were about 1,300 to 1,500 kWh/MG, whereas
wastewater Pilot utilities averaged 1,746 kWh/MG (range of 827 to 3,432 kWh/MG) in
2012.
• AWWA recently reported on a survey of drinking water utilities it conducted in
partnership with the Chicago Metropolitan Area for Planning. The survey included 15
medium-sized (5,000 to 15,000 connected population) and 7 large (greater than 15,000
connected population) DWPs in Northeast Illinois. Electrical energy intensity of the
Illinois group averaged 1,560 and 1,621 kWh/MG for medium and large facilities,
respectively. By comparison, drinking water Pilot utilities averaged 1,931 kWh/MG in
2011.
Pilot Utility
MGD
DW
or
WW
Change in Annual
Energy Cost (all are
Ngas + elect except
Valpo DW which is
elect only)
Change in Annual
Electrical Energy
Usage
Change in Annual
Natural Gas Usage
Change in GHG
Emissions,
MTC02e due to
electricity + natural
gas
Electrical Energy
intensity,
kWh/MG
Portfolio
Manager
Rating
total Cost
%
gWh
%
kTherm
%
total GHG
%
2011
%
Change
Angola WWTP
1.1
WW
-$43,117
-29%
-0.59
-34%
-1.89
-34%
-428
-34%
2,454
-39%
77
Bloomington- Blucher
Poole WWTP
4.4
WW
$77,639
23%
0.42
8%
-11.52
-32%
237
6%
3,432
-32%
20
West Lafayette WWTP
7.9
WW
-$23,726
-8%
-1.10
-23%
-10.57
-59%
-723
-21%
1,276
-18%
85
Lafayette WWTP
19.1
WW
-$103,633
-17%
-2.69
-30%
-79.98
-64%
-2331
-34%
827
-26%
91
Logans port WWTP
8.3
WW
$106
0%
-0.70
-19%
-14.96
-9%
-534
-19%
908
-23%
84
Mishawaka WWTP
10.9
WW
-$199,281
-34%
-0.56
-10%
-36.58
-26%
-559
-12%
1,184
0%
85
Valparaiso -
Elden Kuhl WWTP
4.4
WW
-$77,997
-16%
-0.39
-9%
-16.42
-14%
-364
-10%
2,142
-5%
62
Bloomington -
Monroe DWP
14.4
DW
$59,215
8%
-0.17
-1%
-12.56
-51%
-190
-52%
2,270
4%
not
applicable
Mishawaka DWP
8
DW
$98,846
24%
-0.39
-8%
-7.81
-18%
-315
-9%
1,624
3%
not
applicable
Valparaiso -
Flint Lake DWP
2.3
DW
-$22,722
-14%
-0.32
-18%
not
reported
not
reported
-228
-18%
1,900
-11%
not
applicable
total
-$234,669
-6.5
-192.3
-5,436
Average
-$23,467
-0.1
-15%
-21.37
-34%
-544
-20%
1,802
-15%
Table 1. Summary of Energy, Cost, and GHG Outcomes
11 Focus on Energy (December 2006) Water and wastewater energy best practice guidebook. Wisconsin Department
of Administration, Division of Energy.
12 Illinois Section of the American Waterworks Association (March 2012) Water-energy nexus survey summary
report. http://www.isawwa.org/reSOUrce/collection/82A33FB3-E26F-4EAl-932D-866A9E8E264A/FY12-
0077 ISAWWA SURVEY REPORT fmal.pdf
121
-------
100
90
80
*4= 70
(0
DC
-
15
cc
60
50
40
30
20
10
¦ Baseline (pre-Pilot)
¦ 2011
& &
c&
.?
.
-------
5,000
4,000
^ 3,000
2,000
1,000
¦ Baseline (Pre-pilot)
¦ 2011
y y y y y y y / y
^ ^° * s
<$¦
2?" xCf
& .Js
Figure 6. Pre- and Post-pilot Energy Intensity
14
-------
3. Findings and Recommendations
This section presents findings from the Pilot from IDEM and EPA. It is not intended as a
critique of any program or element of the Guidebook or Pilot utility. The goal is to support
energy management by documenting lessons learned.
Six questions are at the core of energy management
The Guidebook was written for water utilities of any size or sophistication, and regardless of
staff experience with energy efficiency or the PDCA framework. Pilot utilities began by sifting
through the Guidebook to find sessions and modules of most relevance. Some referred to a chart
in the Guidebook that asks, "If this characterizes your situation.. .then focus on... [And] use
13
these [Guidebook] tools." By the end of the Pilot, however, the Pilot utilities demonstrated that
energy management can be narrowed down to six core questions that are a good starting place
for any utility, large or small. The six questions are shown in Table 2 along with an index to the
relevant Guidebook module(s).
In-house staff: a resource for assessing energy use and opportunities
According to the Guidebook (Pages 29 and 68) the energy audit or assessment is essential to
energy management. Early in the Pilot, the group met with frustration when it was found that
most were not in a financial position to hire a third-party energy auditor. EPA and IDEM
initially considered supporting audits at Pilot utilities through supplemental funding, but a shift
in budget priorities meant that dollars were not available. A decision had to be reached on how
to move forward with this essential step.
Pilot utilities began to draw from the knowledge and experience of in-house operation, machine,
engineering, managerial, lab, accounting and/or administrative personnel were a valuable
resource. To focus the discussion, IDEM organized a series of three meetings at each Pilot
utility where staff, (1) shared ideas openly with each other, (2) mentally walked through the
process and examined energy use at each operation, and (3) used this information to propose
ECMs. Each meeting took one to two hours and required minimal preparation from the
participants, with the exception of one person who re-formatted documents between meetings
one and two.
Staff participation varied by Pilot utility from a single manager to a good cross-section of
departments. Pilot utilities were pleased with the outputs (including an energy-flow chart and list
of ECMs) and reported on the benefitted of cross-department interaction on a single topic that
impacts everyone (energy). Several commented that a lot of focused work was accomplished in a
short amount of time. Two commented that the process encouraged staff to think about
optimization and efficiency in new ways.
13 See Page 7 - 8 of the Guidebook "Characterization of your Utility"
151
-------
Core question
Corresponding Guidebook Session or module
1. How much energy does my
plant use?
• Assess current energy baseline status (2,-)
• Benchmark energy efficiency information (2,1) Choose
an energy "fenceline" (1,3)
• Track monthly and annual energy use (2,1, step 2)
2. What do I spend on energy
each month?
Same as Question 1
3. Who is paying attention
energy use and what support do I
need?
• Secure and maintain management commitment... (1,2)
• Establish energy improvement program leadership
(1,4)
• Get top management"s commitment and approval ((5,
1, step 2)
4. What energy conservation
measures(s) or ECMs can I try
now?
• Conduct an energy assessment (2,2)
• Prioritize activities/operations and potential energy
improvement efforts (3,2 & 3,3)
5. What timeline and staffing go
along with each ECM?
• Establish objectives and targets (4,- & 4,1)
• Define performance indicators (4,2)
• Develop Action Plans (IAPs) to implement ... (5,1)
• Implement action to adjust or correct ... (6,1)
6. How do I keep energy
efficiency efforts a priority while
also meeting or exceeding
product quality expectations?
• Secure and maintain employee buy-in (1,5)
• Communicate results, success (1,6 & 7,4)
• Maintain energy improvement programs (7,1)
Table 2. Six Core Energy Management Questions
16
-------
Perhaps the most critical aspect of success of this three-meeting process was a facilitator. IDEM
is commended for guiding staff
through the self-assessment process.
Also critical, was a private contract
engineer who volunteered to sit in on
meetings one and two and contribute
ideas. Another third aspect of success
was visual aids. IDEM furnished graphs and charts to help staff, (1) mentally walk through the
operation to identify energy-using activities and processes, (2) develop a list of potential ECMs,
(3) agree on decision criteria, and (4) select priority ECMs.14 They were displayed at the
meetings using a computer and projector so that all could view and adjust information as it was
obtained.
"We would probably have only listed high service
pumps without considering other equipment if we
had started with an audit so talking through the
flow chart helped us be more thorough."
Energy data should be well documented for quality assurance
Energy management is data-driven. Data worth collecting should be good quality and useful for
future comparisons. Until there is a standard protocol for energy data at water utilities, it is left
to the individual water utility to document the source, manipulation and management of energy
data it collects15.
At the Pilot kick-off, power companies
provided Pilot utilities a complimentary
summary of monthly electricity use over
previous year (2008).16 After that, utilities
collected their own data from electricity
17
natural gas bills. Energy bills rarely, if
align with the calendar month and are received a month or more after the energy is used.1
Metering data will improve as power companies equip water utilities with smart meters that
record and report usage on a daily or minute basis.
"We needed to understand where the
energy bills are and learn what they tell
us about our energy use. In the past, the
treatment plant did not see energy bills.
They went to accounts payable."
the
and
ever,
18
The typical electric bill includes kWh (usage), kW (peak), and per-cent (power factor). Figure 7
is a chart from a Pilot utility showing monthly flow and energy intensity computed as natural gas
and electricity both (red line) and as electricity only (blue line). The plant is steadily reducing
14 The visual aids are provided in a separate document called the Guidebook Supplement Specifically, they are
contained in the Energy Management System Manuals under the heading "Activities and Operations" and "Priority
Energy Using Activities and Operations" procedures.
15 A study by the Illinois Section of the American Water Works Association (ISAWWA) points to a need for a
consistent and comparable data collection methodology for the water utility. A standard methodology would lead to
better benchmarking and more comparisons between and among utilities.
16 There is usually a charge for this service.
17 Since the Pilot was completed, the EPA Office of Water published an Energy Use Assessment Tool for drinking
water and wastewater utilities. Version 1.0 was introduced in April 2012 and is available at
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/energy use.cfm
18 The Pilot calculates the billing month as equal to the calendar month. For example, a billing month from June 12
to July 11 was treated as June 1 to 30.
171
-------
energy use. The red peaks (natural gas plus electricity) reflect heating needs in the winter.
Similar heating profiles found at other utilities are shown in Attachment 5.
Pilot utilities used energy data to trend,
• Electricity consumption - kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month from power company bills.
This metric includes all electricity entering the plant from the electrical grid.
• Natural gas consumption - therm per month from power company bills. This metric
includes all natural gas entering the plant from the gas pipeline.
• Energy usage - kWh per month. This is the sum of electricity and natural gas
consumption where 1 therm equals 29.3 kWh.
• Energy intensity - the energy usage divided by treated water flow. Energy intensity
was defined for the Pilot as kWh per million gallons (kWh/MG) for electrical energy
only. It did not include natural gas energy. The flow used to calculate kWh/MG for
drinking water utilities was based on finished water as opposed to intake water which is
usually a larger number.
Figure 7. Lafayette Flow and Energy Trends
Biogas energy was not the focus of the Pilot, but is worth mentioning. Municipal wastewater
biogas is about 60 percent methane, a fuel source that can be used to offset natural gas
purchases. Several Pilot utilities use biogas energy to offset natural gas. West Lafayette cleans
and uses its biogas to generate electricity.
18
-------
Energy conservation measures range from no cost to high cost
Table 3 is a summary of ECMs identified by Pilot utilities. The ECMs can be grouped into five
general categories: process equipment upgrades, lighting retrofit, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) improvement, operating
changes, and other. The capital cost for these ECMs
ranged from $190,000 down to $0 with many low-
cost measures identified.
One Pilot (Angola) utility employed an outside
expert to recommend low-cost optimization
measures that improved operation and reduced
energy usage. Throughout the Pilot Angola showed steady energy improvement from equipment
upgrades and process optimization. It demonstrated that an integrated approach that includes
operational changes with new equipment compounds energy saving potential.
Pilot utilities were fortunate to be addressing energy management at a time when funding was
available from the Department of Energy (DOE) through Energy Conservation Block Grants
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Three Pilot utilities received
block grants during the Pilot and credit energy management records for helping them meet tight
grant application deadlines. In a similar vein, the City of Bloomington Utilities leveraged
energy management records to support a DWP bond issued in 2011.
More than one Pilot utility negotiated a more favorable rate tariff with its energy provider.
Valparaiso Drinking Water reported a saving of about $1,000 per month through its new rate
structure taking into consideration fixed and variable rates, including power factor, demand rates,
and other add-ons. Utility bills are not consistent across energy companies and not always simple
to read. By contacting the energy provider, utilities can learn about billing options and how to
potentially save money through peak shaving.
Energy teams need access to training and resources
According to the Guidebook (p. 10) energy teams
are central to energy management to plan,
delegate, establish deadlines, collect and evaluate
work products, and provide training, guidance
and assistance. For Pilot utility energy teams to
lead the way, they need resources and training,
much like safety teams. EPA has developed numerous outreach tools, including training modules
and technical assistance, but these tools are not specific to water utility energy teams. 19 A set of
resources and training modules should be developed for water utility energy teams.
"It"s all incremental and about
getting employees to look for
energy-saving measures. Little
improvements can add up to real
progress."
"Make sure utilities are thinking
about water efficiency as an energy
saving strategy. Become a
WaterSense Dartner."
19 The EPA's climate-ready water utilities toolbox is a good example of an organized, searchable database for water
utilities http://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecuritv/climate/toolbox.html. Also, the ENERGY STAR website
provides resources to help show teams how they are progressing in energy programs
www.energvstar.gov/index.cfm?c=guidelines. guidelines index. A resources for that an energy team might find
191
-------
Capital Cost Range
Energy Conservation Measure
$ 192,000 - $65,000
Process Equipment Upgrades:
• High efficiency turbo blowers with on-line dissolved oxygen
(DO) monitoring,
• Raw sewage pumps with improved efficiency and flexibility,
• Variable frequency drives on influent pumps and blowers.
$4,500-$13,240
Lighting Svstem Retrofit:
• Replace/enhance interior and exterior existing fixtures,
• Install occupancy sensors,
• Upgrade digester lighting.
$1,370-$53,000
HVAC Improvement
• Adjust controls to reduce winter heating demand,
• Replace HVAC chiller unit.
$1,500
New Lab or Office Eauioment:
Three new ENERGY STAR™-rated refrigerators^
$0 - $6,000
Operating Change:
• Reduce recycle pumping needs,
• Address solids and heating in digester operation,
• Adjust chemical feed system,
• Reset variable frequency drive (VFD) controls,
• Clean aeration diffusers,
• New operating procedures to control peaks,
• New operating procedures to control aeration across shifts,
• Adjust intake water pumping based on the previous day.
$0
Other
• Change electrical switches so VFD fans and building fans run
only as needed,
• Work with the power company to revise the rate structure.
Table 3. ECM and Cost Range
useful is on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/cut energy.cfm Another model program is
the EPA WaterSense partnership, which offers free WaterSense materials and ideas to conserve water, and by
reducing the need to pump and treat, saves energy http://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/partner website.html.
201
-------
A menu or checklist can simplify the Plan-stage
About half of the Guidebook's 78 pages cover the Plan stage, starting with an overall awareness
20
of energy management leading toward a list of priority ECMs. Observations during the Pilot
suggest that no matter how diligent the utility, it is unlikely that all Plan-stage sessions can be
completed within a few months. The Pilot budgeted a full year for the Plan stage. Given that
Plan is not a short-term proposition, it is important to make it manageable.
As Pilot utilities worked through that first year, they were given a Plan-stage checklist shown in
Figure 8. This checklist was used as a menu as Pilot utilities selected which items to do
immediately and which they might postpone to a later PDCA cycle, or indefinitely. By the end
of year one, only four Pilot utilities had developed any energy policy (Session 2, Module 3).
None had completed the table of previously implemented energy projects (Session 1, Module 4),
opting to roll the table of previously implemented projects into a single list of ECMs. One Pilot
utility went through the entire first year without a list of strategic goals and did not fully engage
internally and externally interested parties. It was clear from the experience of that Pilot utility
that top management support and commitment are very important and should be pursued as soon
as possible. 21
Utilities helped clarify aspects of the Guidebook
The Pilot helped use real-world situations to clarify and support the Guidebook. Two aspects are
worth noting: formatting the energy improvement action plan (IAP) and system vs. operation.
• IAP. Pilot utilities defined IAP as a table of tasks, key personnel, performance measures,
and decision points for each ECM. Table 4 shows an IAP developed for the Pilot. It is a
combination of what the Guidebook calls an action plan, energy improvement action
plan, or energy improvement management plan.
• Treatment System versus System Thinking/Activity versus Operation. Depending on
context, "System," can mean "treatment system" or "systems thinking." Similarly,
"activity" and "operation" can be interpreted from different perspectives, as shown in
Table 5. Therefore, it is important to talk through the Guidebook in cases where terms
may seem unclear. Appendix E (List of Activities and Operations) was challenging to
some until "activity" and "operation" was sorted out. During the Pilot, operation referred
to a unit process, whereas activity was the equipment involved in that process. The
Guidebook frequently refers to system, activity and operation so it is important to build
understanding through examples.22
Additional observations about Guidebook documents are provided in Attachment 4 of this report.
211 The Pilot used the phrase "energy conservation measure" or ECM rather than "potential energy improvement
effort" (See Guidebook Session 3, Module 3) to refer to actions that improve energy efficiency or conserve energy.
21 Session 1, Module 4 says that top management support is critical.
22 Activity and operation are in: identifying activities and operations that consume energy (Session 3, Module 2);
prioritizing activities/operations (Session 3, Module 3), development of action plans or IAPs (Session 5, Module 1),
developing management system controls (Session 5, Module 2), Determine what else you need ... (Session 6,
Module 2).
21
-------
2009-2011 Indiana Energy Pilot Projects
Checklist of Activities for the Plan Stage
PLAN
TIMEFRAME(1.5MONTHS): APRIL 1 -jy&X 15,2010
~iistofUtility Strafcsgic Goals (Guidebook p. 12)
~Prajxt (Guidebook p. 14)
~Name role of aiembas on energy team (Guidebook p. 15)
DLiit0fin2rn.il external interested partis (Guidebook p. IS)
~Portfolio Manager monthly and amraal aetgy input:
~Basdins energy nse (kWh month, month, MG. S month for 2005)
~Energy policy draft or final
~Li Et of Previously ImpleEtttec Projects (Guidebook p. 16)
~Enagy Baseline Data (Guidebook Appendix E)
~Equipment Inventory (Guidebook Appendix C)
~Li = t of Activities, and Operations (Guidebook Appendix E)
DCnient Monitoring and Measuring (Guidebook Appendix L)
TIME FRAME (3.0 MONTHS): MAY 15-AUGUST 15,2010
~Eaagy Priority Ranking Table (Guidebook Appendix E. left most columns)
~List ofisnking criteria
~Energy Priority Ranking Tabla (Guid±ook Appendix H)
~ Select an energy conservation measure (ECM) to implement
~Develop Objectives- and Target: for each ECM (Guidebook Appendix I)
TIME FRAME (1.5 MONTHS): AUGUST 15 - SEPTEMBER 30,2010
~Continue to benchmark energy -use and cost
~Continue to implement Guidebook (action plan, communication,....)
:
Figure 8. Checklist / Menu of Plan Stage Activities
22
-------
Subject: Energy Improvement Action Plan
EC-M £2. Reduce energy used by RAS Pumps
Approved by: Jolm Doe
Document No.
Date Issued:
A ctivity: Return A ctivat ed Slud g e Pumping
Operation: Final Clarification
Objective and Target: Reduce electricity in RAS pumping by 2% by December 31. 2011
Action Plan
Task
Responsible
Partv
Timeframe
Performance
Measure
Comments
Develop baseline
S. Adams
12,31/2010
km
Research different
operating scenarios
J. Arm stead
W'A'VWvWvVWW
12/31/2010
Report to
operators
Implement and
monitor new operating
scenarios
Maintenance
staff
8/31/2011
kWh. process
condition
Implement final
scenario
Maintenance
staff
9/30/2011
kWh, process
condition
Conduct employee
training
E. Kems
10/31/2011
Sign-in sheet
Track energy saving
and process condition
J. Ann stead
and C. Turner
11/30/2011
k\Vh. process
condition
Collect
information
from VFDs
Report saving to
wastewater staff
B. Davis
12/31/2011
kWh= process
condition
Table 4. Energy Improvement Action Plan
23
-------
Energy metering is usually plant-wide and influences the fenceline
The Guidebook defines "fenceline" as the equipment, operations or processes that are the focus
of energy improvement goals. Selecting the right fenceline is an important first decision for a
utility in the Plan stage. Pilot utilities
discovered that there is more than one
purpose for a fenceline and often set the
fenceline where they could measure kilowatt-
hour or therm. Since, most Pilot utilities are
not equipped to measure energy consumption of individual operations, unit processes or
components, their fenceline became the entire plant (See Figure 9).
Oversized fencelines led to delay in Guidebook Appendix C, List of Energy-using Equipment.
The list became unmanageable as a planning effort and by the end of month Pilot utilities started
to report delays. Eventually, the Pilot utilities developed strategies to work within large
fencelines:
• Employ graduate school interns. At Indiana University"s School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, the college pays 75 percent of the intern"s salary and the city
pays the remaining 25 percent. Interns work up to 9 hours per week for a total of 120 to
150 hours of experience that can be applied toward college credit. An intern collected
Pilot utility data and through a regression analysis discovered anomalies in the energy
performance of two large pumps. The data led operators to cut peak energy usage and
led mechanics to a malfunctioning pump.
• Address the lack of sub-metering by estimating energy and costs from horsepower and
hours of operation. Then re-draw the fenceline around the five largest pieces of
equipment. As one utility manager said, "I tend to think in horsepower." One
horsepower running 24/7 at $0.10 per kWh
costs about $35.00 in energy per month.
• Install portable meters. One Pilot utility"s
power company installed a portable power
meter and left it on site, recording real-time
energy use for several months.
• Develop an energy improvement action plan for design and installation of process sub-
meters and a data acquisition system to track the energy consumed along with other
process variables. Energy metering is not traditionally thought of as an ECM, but it was
clear from Pilot utilities that better metering will improve future PDCA cycles.
"If I was coming into this fresh and you
asked me to create an equipment
inventory, I would stop right there."
"We have our big picture for the
plant and now we are going to
have to measure individual
processes."
24
-------
Term
How the term is used
in the Guidebook
How the term is used
by the Pilot utility
Operation
Pumping,
building heating,
service truck,
aeration,
dewatering,
heating ventilation and air
conditioning,
sludge handling
Headworks, receiving station, influent lift station,
grit removal,
Primary clarification.
Final clarification, including reaeration.
Sludge handling blending, thickening,
dewatering, dissolved air floatation, digestion
(anaerobic or aerobic),
Disinfection,
Activity
Equipment,
lighting,
vehicle use,
heating, ventilation and air
conditioning
Blowers (e.g. aeration, air scouring).
Pumps (e.g. chemical feed, pressurization pump,
jet aeration, high service, recycling, filter
backwash, mixing, etc.),
Shoo (air compressor, hoist).
Lab equipment (e.g. autoclaves and refrigerators)
Office eauioment.
Fleet equipment,
HVAC ( air conditioner and cooler, air handling
unit, exhaust fans, boiler),
Lighting,
Miscellaneous machinery (door openers, flights
and hoists), vending machines, generators.
Table 5. Activity and Operation
-------
Figure 9. Fencelines for Mishawaka (left) and Lafayette (right)
Portfolio Manager is not fully enabled for water utilities
The Guidebook recommends using Portfolio Manager to keep track of energy use. However, at
the time of the Pilot, Portfolio Manager did not offer a performance rating for DWPs and did not
23
offer the energy star for either WW or DWPs. Figure 10 shows space types eligible for the
Energy Star'N . A high performance rating in
Portfolio Manager can merit the Energy Star1"
certificate, for all space types in Figure 10 except
water utilities. On the plus side, WWTPs and DWPs
can use Portfolio Manager for a statement of
performance as shown in Figure 11. Portfolio
Manager also calculates GFIG from kWh and therm
data. Also, it is a way to generate a summary table
similar to those shown in Attachment 2 of this report.
4*Urge the person keeping track
of energy use to review it with
superiors and make sure they
become aware their energy
consumption... Sometimes it is
too easy to say „we will get to it
later."'
" As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, WWTPs are eligible for an energy' performance rating.
26
-------
W astp^vater and DT
/\Water Utilities
Space Types Eligible for
Hospitals Retail
ENERGY STAR Rating
Office Buildings Hotels
Medical Office
Buildings
Warehouses
Dormitories
Courthouses
Supermarkets
Financial Centers
Schools
Figure 10. Space Types Eligible for Energy Star
27
-------
OfAb r*y JMb&Mi
ENERGY STAR
STATEMENT OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE
City of West Lafayette Wastewater
BilMho ID: I5SS9K
Far 12-rwntr. Period BvcfctiQ: December 31 2E11'
Dab* SEP twoomoc tosftafflte: H'A
Itete SE? <3er,enrt&d: Fetwuary 27. ZH2
FaoBfty
Ciy oJ West LarfayeSe .vanewatoer
500 S. River ftoao
West -afa^tlE, 5M 47906
Year S4H«: ! 959
Eneroy PeffofTranoe Ratine il-'DDi 95
Sfte Energy Uce Summary5
EJectrtcfcy - Gna pj-ii-a:ei *Eoij
Natural Oh i cE-jH
txj Erenjy kBlu.
FaoHfiy Owner
M'A
Pslrrary Contact fcc trt^s- Faotltty
N'A
12,352.012
2,8^3,425
1 £>205.437
Energy Inter® Hy1
Sit *aMjpd; 2
Scute (feBuftpd 6
Emlcdonc {based an de energy use
Gsreenhxce Gas Errtsdons i?AGO?e.'yssir 2,715
Elawtrto Octrfcutxjn Utility
C»jte Enerffj tndtma
Rational Meoian Compartcon.
IflaBcnal Meclar Ste E J 3
NOBonal Medlar Sara EJ.' 9
% I'fTcn-n:e from NsOorai Vealar Source E-M -3€^»
SuCcStq Tipe MtaatcMaAef
Meets Industry &1an
-------
New short guides, templates and examples supplement the Guidebook
During year 2 of the Pilot, GETF held conference calls with Pilot utilities to delve into eleven
topics or key elements of energy management: (1) energy policy, (2) legal and other
requirements and compliance status, (3) activities and operations, (4) objectives and targets, (5)
operational controls, (6) awareness and competency training, (7) internal and external
communication, (8) document control, (9) monitoring and measurement, (10) corrective action,
and (11) management review. The calls led to eleven short guides and templates to supplement
the Guidebook and assist utilities with energy management.
Each short guide and template provides a description of the key element, a checklist showing
exactly how to get started, and a template to document procedures. In addition to the templates
and short guides, GETF used Pilot utility input to package worked examples into two energy
system manuals, one for a DWP and the other for a WWTP. Though the manuals represent
fictitious plants, they are based on real-world situations from the Pilot and show how a utility
might assemble Guidebook outputs into one cohesive document.
It is hoped that the short guides, templates and example manuals can serve as useful resources
for other utilities.
4. Conclusion
The Pilot confirms that by paying attention to energy management water utilities can reduce
operating expense and curb GHG emissions. Energy
treatment plant improvement and better
management overall. The Guidebook provides a
flexible yet comprehensive process to address
energy management. This paper identifies ten
strategies or lessons learned to advance energy
management across the water sector. They include si
manager should answer as core energy management competencies.
As a group the 10 Pilot utilities saved energy, reduced cost and lowered GHG emissions. Their
input was the basis for this report and was included in instructional short guides, templates and
examples published separately to supplement the Guidebook Energy management planning and
implementation is not an exact science. Whether a water utility chooses to develop all or just
some of the Guidebook sessions, it will want to get a commitment by top management and
establish an energy improvement action plan with objectives and targets to meet energy
efficiency goals. It is recommended that water utilities consult the short guides and templates,
and the sample energy management system manuals along with the Guidebook and brag about
accomplishments in cumulative annual energy reports for boards and ratepayers. Attachment 6
shows a reporting format.
management also offers opportunity for
This program has been excellent in
that we are more diligent in observing
our surroundings and how it affects
our energy consumption."
common questions every water utility
29
-------
Key Energy Management
System Element
Guidebook (Section, Module) that the Key Energy
Management System Element Supports
Energy policy
• Develop an energy policy (3,1)
Legal and other requirements
and compliance status
• Review Legal and other requirements and establish
a compliance baseline (2,6)
• Monitor/reassess compliance status (6,6)
Activities and operations
• Identify activities and operations that consume
energy (3,2)
Objectives and targets
• Identify energy obj ectives and targets (4,1)
Training
• Develop management systems „operating controls"
to support energy improvements - TRAINING
(5,2)
Communication
• Communicate results (1,6)
• Develop management system „operating controls"
to „suppoit energy improvements" (5,2)
• Communicate success (7,4)
Document control
• Develop management system „operating controls"
to support energy improvements -
CONTROLLING DOCUMENTS AND
MANAGING RECORDS (5,2)
Monitoring and measurement
• Monitoring and measuring your energy
improvement management program (6,-)
Corrective action
• Implement action plans to adjust or correct when
you are not progressing toward your energy goals
(6,5)
Management review
• Review the progress of your energy targets (6,4)
Table 6. New Resources for Energy Management: A Supplement to the Guidebook
30
-------
Attachment 1. List of acronyms in this report
CBU - City of Bloomington Utilities
C02e - carbon dioxide equivalent
DO - dissolved oxygen
DW - drinking water
ECM - energy conservation measure
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GETF - Global Environment Technology Foundation
GHG - greenhouse gas
gWh - gigawatt-hour
HVAC - heating, ventilation and air conditioning
IAP - energy improvement action plan
IDEM - Indiana Department of Environmental Management
kWh - kilowatt-hour
MG - million gallons
MGD - million gallons per day
Mt - million ton
PDC A - Plan-Do-Check-Act
VFD-variable frequency drive
31
-------
Attachment 2. Portfolio Manager Summary Tables (Wastewater)
Angola
H Monrtn [ning
Awrago
riow
(MGD)
o
CuMnnt
Rating
(1-1001
O
Current Slle
Electric U«t
|kWh]
9
Currant Silo
llalunl Gn Use
(tliMtno)
0
Cuniiftt Silii
Energy pot Flow
(kBttirgpil)
O
Cuifeni Tsfal GHG
LmtMiDm
{MtC02et
Aim Li .it C riLM (jy
Cost
(US Dollars (Sf|
O
Decanter 2007 v
12
3?
1 528 704 7
5,1164
4 6464
1.108 77
S132M2 76
December 200® "
12
26
1 752.035.5
5.5TO4
S 3011
1.269 t9
$149 893.37
December JM9 »
¦
13
38
1.536.096 6
4.328 0
4 4191
1 109 SO
$131,577 80
1 1
December 2010 "
Oticwtw 2011 v
11
1 J
61
n
1262 415 6
V161 05$ 7
3.9% 2
3.683 7
4.2473
3 316$
914 41
$11(7
5106.549 33
$106,77$ 20
City of Bloomington Utilities/Blucher Poole
1? UmW.. Fmlinq
Avtng*
(tow
(UGO»
o
CulTMl
Kmtlny
(1 100)
o
CwtMt SK»
Elxtk Um
IVWh)
o
Cintm SM*
NanualCnUw
(tfwwrm)
O
lunar* SM*
Energy p*> Flow
(MJiu/goU)
o
Current local GHG
(mtHhin
(UKO?.)
Annual Eiwgi
Cm)
(US Dollar!
•
Oacerr*.. 2>0W «
2»
6
$124 3794
36 558$
7 4388
3 9614$
$345 022 70
D*c*fntw 20C9 »
37
14
4 904 173 3
34 9«02
5 4699
3 656 15
1)72242 04
Ctocarnbur 2010 ~
10
18
5 524 $98 7
33 621 9
54847
4 087 49
$402,645 05
December 2011 *
46
20
5 746 045 8
25 040 5
4 7876
4 198 50
$422 66 1 46
City of West Lafayette
1? Monlla Ending
Average
Flow
|M6D)
9
Current
Rating
1110ft]
•
CunoM Slla
Elactrlr; Uw
(KWhJ
9
Current Slle
Nitlur.il Gm Uw
[llw*m>5f
O
Current Slle
Etwrgy por Flow
(kBtu.'oprt)
O
Current Total GHG
tminioia
(UtCO?r>|
Annual Energy
C«w»
(USOollatf r$)(
9
December 2006 ¦»
S3
71
4 724 992.7
17,865.5
2 1452
3.437 91
$307 729.12
December 2009 »|
78
68
4.418.4639
33,628 2
2 3714
3 301 M
$317 722 51
Decanter 2010 "
75
73
4 262417 9
41 203 7
2.5028
3 234 S4
$319 051 35
Dumber 2011 v
1 8
85
3.623.098 4
28.434 2
1 9381
1
2.714 $S
$234 004 23
32
-------
City of Lafayette
1? Mofflla Foiling
A(rerage
Bow
ittGD)
©
Cuireni
Rating
[1 too
o
Current SiU
Eloctrlt IJ«
(kVUhJ
e
Current Site
H ithu ,il Gaa tlw
(llWHTIU|i
O
Current Site
( i.piiiy pt>r FIbw
(kfititfgpd)
O
Current Totul GHG
Emissions
(UtC02o)
Annual Energy
Cost
H«JS Do Han [S)|
O
December 2007 v
18.5
55
10.284.689.6
120 20? 5
2 54-35
7,915 85
$616 475 69
December 2CQ8 *
217
sa
S837.4S5 3
124 8064
19629
6.916.41
S592.906 98
December 2M9 «
19 8
69
f 8,264,7007
57 221 S
1 7114
6 151 64
$561,590 22
December 201Q »
December 2011 v
IS 2
204
76
91
| 8.058.425 0
| 6.144 520 5
61.440 a
44 S30-0
1 8436
12472
6.028 14
4.5857ft
5557,214 52
$489,273 61
Logansport Municipal Utilities
tl Booths Ending
Average
Flow
iMGO]
•
Current
Haling
(1100)
o
Current Sim
Elechic Die
(kWh)
O
Curienl Site
Natural Gut Uw
(ttinm}
O
Current Site
Energy pet Flow
tkfltn/gpd]
9
Current Etriil GHG
Emissions
(MiCOJe)
Annual Energy
Cwt
IDS Bollati ($1)
O
Daeembw 2C0S v
92
59
3.678 000 0
37433 6
17674
2.801 33
$270,08120
December 2009 "
88
sa
3.504 000 0
32:638 8
t 7300
2.652.69
$282,846 12
December 2010 ¦*
S3
81
3 140 77013
38 545 3
16339
2 374 04
$249,923 83
December 2011 •*
90
34
2 976 MOO
34,625 8
1 5174
2,289 71
$270 187.35
Mishawaka City Utilities
t? Mnttrtu Ending
Averagi!
Row
|«GD)
O
Cu-rninf
listing
|11(KI|
a
Current She
t Intuit U»t
|kWb>
•
Current Site
natural Gas Hut
fllnerms)
O
Current SWfi
Energy (let How
(KJtu'jfl)d)
O
Current Total GHG
t missions
fHlCO?c)
Annual Eimrg*
Com
(US Dollwi |S|]
O
December 2009 *
12 €
75
5.430,490(1
140.532.6
2 5806
4 589.S1
5585,832 M
Decetr-ter 2010 »
10 5
83
4.8J3.6W 0
108 722 1
2 6295
4,026 44
5396 225 00
Becembw 201! •*
11 4
85
4.915.200 0
103.9486
25761
4,030.48
$386 551.34
Valparaiso City Utilities/Elden Kuehl
12 Msmlti Eruling
Awn-rage
Flow
|MG0)
•
Current
Rating
|11«|
«
Current Site
Electric Use
(kWh)
m
CwiaM Site
Natural Gas llao
(therms)
o
Current Silo
Eneigy per Flow
(MJtu.'Bprll
o
Currem fmil GHG
EinJutons
(Mt(.'07e)
Anmwl Energy
Com
ins Dollar? (S})
O
December 20D? -v
5.3
75
4 200,000 0
2.7092
2 971 47
$545,123 00
December 2003 v
S3
£3
4 367,92® 0
113,994.7
4.9445
3.696 73
$475,456 00
1 December 2M9 "
50
45
4 727 040 0
1
78.5B4 2
4.8365
3,762 42
5439.112 00
1
December 2010 ¦*
4 3
47
4 425,600 0
80.661 8
5 4227
3.SKI 20
5377 777 34
—J
[ December 20 n v
'i
51
62
3.976.440 0 ' |
97 569 8
4 5524
3.332 38
$397,459.31
i
33
-------
Attachment 3. Summary Tables for Drinking Water Utilities
Valcc D'W Flint
Lake
2.3 MGD
Total Electricity
IGWh/vear)
1
Total Natural Gas
(Ktherms/year)
GHG
Emissions,
(MtC02e)
Elect
Energy
Ch a rge s
Total Elect +
NG use, kWh
Total elect
Charges
Electrical Energy
Intensity,
kWh/MG
2007
1.81
n/a
1,268
Si 65,450
n/a
5
165,450
2,121
200S
1.7S
n/a
1,224
3159,330
n/a
3
159,330
2,119
2Q39
1.83
n/a
1,290
S 165,904
n/a
3
168,904
2,441
2010
1.65
n/a
1,168
5153,533
n/a
3
153,588
1,931
Value change 2010
(baseline = 2005)
-0.16
-56
-55,792
5
(5,792)
-133
% change 2010
[baseline = 2003)
-9%
-5%
-4%
-4%
-7%
Mishawaka DW
S O MGD
Total Electricity
(GWh/year)
Total Natural Gas
(Ktherms/year)
GHG
Emissions,
|MMtCQ2e)
Elect
Energy
Charges
Tota 1 El ect +
NG use, kWh
Total elect +
NG Charges
Electrical Energy
Intensity,
kWh/MG
2003
4,47
42
528
3342,823
5,713,629
3
390,649
1,439
2009
4.09
37
475
3349,822
5,186,170
5
333,626
1,424
2010
4.75
44
554
5437,039
6,033,173
5
454,376
1,653
Value change 2010
Ibaseline = 2003)
0.2S
1
26
394,216
319,544
3
64,227
164
54 change 2010
Ibaseline = 2008)
6%
336
5%
27%
6%
16?':
11%
CBU Monroe
llntake + Filtration
Plant)
14.4 MGD
Total Electricity
(GWh/year)
Total Natural Gas
(Ktherms/year)
GHG
Emissions,
(MMtC02e)
Elect
Energy
Charges
Total Elect +
NG use, kWh
Total elect +
NG Charges
Electrical Energy-
Intensity,
kWh/MG
2008
11.80
24.75
924
5380,757
12,526,919
5
804,905
2,250
2009
17.45
15.20
1,357
5 3 69,678
17,397,055
3
794,431
3,399
2010
11.82
18.28
958
5383,129
12,359,637
3
763,126
2,198
Value change 2010
Ibaseline = 2Q0S)
0.02
-6.47
34
38,372
-167,282
3
(36,779)
-52
%change 2010
(baseline = 2008)
m
-26%
4%
2%
-1%
-5%
-2%
34
-------
Attachment 4. Critical Review of Guidebook Tables
This attachment to the Indiana Pilot summary report shows how Pilot utilities applied tables in
the Guidebook, for possible revision should a new edition of the Guidebook be published.
1. Previously Implemented and Planned Improvement Projects
Pilot utilities did not use Table 1.1, below. Instead, table headings were addressed in checklist
fashion during a self-assessment. Pilot utilities were not interested in an inventory of previously
implemented projects, choosing instead to gain momentum with current and future projects. The
track improvement feature in Portfolio Manger (see Table 1.2) was used to list energy
conservation measures. Additional columns could be added to right of Table 1.2 showing
whether results are or were communicated and to whom, relevant SOPs, etc.
Table 1.1. Improvements Pro
ects (Guidebook p. 16)
Energy
Use
(type)
Projects
completed
results
Who did you
communicate
results to?
Were
there
associated
SOPs,
training
records?
Current
activities
in
planning
How
will you
measure
results?
Who could
you
communicate
results to?
What
SOPs
and
training
records
will be
needed
Table 1.2. Portfolio Manager Track Improvements Feature
Start Date
Upgrade Category
Upgrade cost
Short
(e.g. recomissioning,
(U.S. dollars)
description
lighting, load
reduction, HVAC,
other
technol ogi es/ strategi e s)
Table 1.3. Portfolio Manager Track Improvements Table (with suggested revisions)
Start Date
(end date)
Project
Estimated Annual
Savings
Upgrade
Category
Brief
Description
Capital Cost
kWh
Energy
Dollars
2. Energy-related Data Elements, Guidebook page 25 and 26, and Appendix B
Tables 2.1 through 2.4 were not completed as Pilot deliverables. It was suggested that these
tables be consolidated as shown in Table 2.5.
Table 2.1. Energy Baseline Data Table (Guidebook P. 25)
35
-------
Data Need
Units
Desired
Frequency of
Data
Data Source
Availability of
Data
Table 2.2 Energy Baseline Data Table (Guidebook Appenc
lixB)
Data Need
Units
Desired
Frequency of
Data
Data Source
Accessibility
Table 2.3. Energy Baseline Data Table (Guidebook P. 26)
Data Need
Units
Frequency of
Data
Data Source
Table 2.4. Energy Baseline Data Table (Guidebook Appendices B and L)
Data Element
Units
Data Source
Table 2.5 Data Collection Profile (suggested)
Data
Element
(e.g.
natural
gas,
biogas,
electricity)
Measurement
Unit
(e.g. kWh,
MGD,
Therms)
Data Collection
Frequency
(e.g.
continuous,
hourly, daily,
monthly)
Data Source
(e.g. meter
number or
location)
Data Report
frequency
(e.g. daily,
monthly)
Entity or
Person(s)
Responsible for
data collection
3. Monthly energy consumption, Guidebook p. 27
When the Guidebook was written in 2008, Portfolio Manager did not track monthly flow. Today
it does, making the table on p. 27 very similar to that used by Portfolio Manager. However,
Portfolio Manager provides monthly consumption data not daily as shown on p. 27, and does not
allow input of billing items such as peak flow or power factor. Pilot utilities that assessed their
electric bills found significant opportunities to save money by peak shaving, addition of
capacitors to reduce power factor charges, and negotiating more favorable rate tariffs or
contracts. Table 3.1 identifies energy cost (cents/kWh). Table 3.4 adds a column to
distinguish between usage charge (the charge per kWh by the power company) and realized
charge (the total billed amount including all charges divided by the kWh used). The ratio of rate
versus realized charges may suggest efficiency.
36
-------
Table 3.1. Energy Consumption Tracking Table (Guidebook p. 27)
2006 Energy
Consumption
(Month)
Average Daily
Consumption
(kWh)
Peak Demand
(kW)
Cost (cents/kWh)
Daily flow
(million gallons)
The table on p. 28 is identical to Table 3.1 except it is a yearly, not monthly summary.
Table 3.2. Energy Consumption Tracking Table (suggested)
2006 Energy
Consumption
(Month)
Average Daily
Consumption
(kWh)
Peak Demand
(kW)
Usage
Charge
($/kWh)
Realized
Charge
($/kWh)
Daily flow
(million
gallons)
0.05/kWh
0.08/kWh
4. List of Activities and Operations, Guidebook p. 36 and Appendix E
Pilot utilities avoided Table 4.1. There was confusion over the terms "operations" and
"activities." On page 36, "activity" is defined similar to "category" in the Portfolio Manager.
Ultimately, it was left up to each Pilot utility to define "activity" and "operation." Typical
"operations" and "activities" are shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. Although each covered the
categories in a slightly different way, a pattern emerged where the operation is a broad category
made up of many similar activities. Utilities developed the list of Activities and Operations by
mentally walking through the facility with the aid of:
Table 4.1 Example List of Activities and Operations (Guidebook p. 36, and Appendix E)
Activity
Operation or location
Type of energy used
Current Use and Costs
Table 4.2 Typical Operations and Activities Defined by Pilot Utilities (Wastewater)
"Operations"
"Activities"
Headworks, septage receiving station, influent
lift station, grit removal, primary clarification,
gravity filters, final clarification, sludge
blending, belt filter press, dissolved air
floatation, anaerobic digestion, aerobic
digester, primary sludge thickening,
disinfection, reaeration, miscellaneous
Aeration blower, air scour blower, peristaltic
pump, feed pump, polymer pump,
pressurization pump, turbidity sampling pump,
jet aeration pump, dilution water pump, cavity
pump, clear well pump, filter backwash pump,
mixing pump, air compressor, flight drive, hot
water boiler, lab equipment, diesel equipment,
vending machine, holding tank aerator, air
conditioner, air handling unit, hot water boiler,
lighting, actuator gate, exhaust fan, garage
door opener, electric hoist, air compressor,
refrigerator, autoclave.
37
-------
Table 4.3 Typical Operations and Activities Defined by Pilot Utilities (Drinking Water)
"Operations"
"Activities"
Filtration, high service pump, wellfield,
chemical treatment, disinfection, booster
station and elevated tanks, low service
pumping, sludge handling, dewatering, water
distribution, miscellaneous
Backwash pump, refrigerator, microwave,
dehumidifier, generator, HVAC, lab
equipment, lighting, diaphragm pump,
peristaltic pump, pre-chlorination pump, high
service pump, post chlorination pump, pressure
filter, raw water pump, well house heater, well
house exhaust fan, thiosulfate pump, natural
gas heating, vending machine, microwave, ice
machine, traveling screen motor, low service
pump, slow mix motor, sludge clarification
pump and motor, skid steer, natural gas boiler,
fluoride pump, motorized entrance gate,
electric hoist, office equipment, lab equipment,
generators, vehicle, lawn equipment,
Table 4.4. Example Flow Chart for Headworks Operation (not in Guidebook)
Inputs
(Enter equipment that utilizes
electricity or natural gas.
E.g. Screening - motors (4),
gear drive for screw
conveyor, compactor...)
Activity / Process
(Enter what takes
place at this activity,
e.g. remove solids
from influent
wastewater greater
than 4 mm in
dimension...)
Outputs
By-
products
Enter the product of the
operation (e.g. Screened
wastewater)
Aspects
Enter byproducts and where disposed (e.g. Screenings -
landfilled; Grit - landfilled ...)
5. Equipment Inventory Worksheets, Appendix C
Pilot utilities did not complete the last column in Table 4.1 because they had no estimates of
current use and cost by operation or activity. Appendix C provides a worksheet that can be used
to estimate current use and cost for process and equipment. Totals from Appendix C can be used
for Table 4.1. However, this was not done for the Pilot because the utilities chose to use
estimates for the first PDCA cycle. The equipment inventory will probably be used only for
very large energy consuming equipment.
6. Criteria to Prioritize Opportunities for Energy Improvements
Pilot utilities decided on the four main criteria shown in boldface below.
38
-------
Ranking Criteria Examples
• Estimated cost to implement
• Potential for energy use reduction
• Technical feasibility
• Availability of funding
• Cost reduction/avoidance
• Payback period (return on investment)
• Ease of implementation
• Legal/regulatory constraints
• Staff capability to implement
• Potential adverse impact on operations
• Existing need for equipment upgrade/replacement
• Support of other priorities
Table 5.1. Priority ranking options
7. Regulatory Requirements Table, Appendix D
Pilot utilities did not complete Appendix D, opting instead to address a procedure to describe
how and when utilities identify environmental laws and regulations. Pilot utilities stated that
they would not propose energy conservation measures that would negatively impact compliance
and saw no need to complete Appendix D. Regulatory considerations of each energy
conservation measure are addressed in a new table, Basis for Objective and Target Selection,
discussed further below.
8. Energy Ranking Priority Table, Guidebook p. 40 and Appendix H
Pilot utilities typically used 4 ranking criteria and multiplied, rather than added them to compute
a total score. A separate table was developed to describe the criterion (see Table 8.2). Pilot
utilities found that multiplying the criterion using scores of 1, 3 and 5, it was easy to see which
scored the highest. Also, in the final table the columns "Type of Energy Used" and "Current Use
and Costs" were omitted (or they could be hidden using Excel) bring greater clarity to the
ranking criterion.
Table 8.1. Energy Priority Ranking Table, Appendix H
Activity
Operation
Type of
Current
Criterion
Criterion
Criterion
Criterion
Criterion
Total
Energy
Use and
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Used
Costs
39
-------
Table 8.2. Energy Priority Ranking Worksheet (revised)
Activities and Operations
Ranking Criterion
Activity
Operation
Freq of
Use
Potential
Energy
Savings
Cost of
Imp.
Energy
Savings
Energy
Intensity
Total
Score
Boilers - natural or
digester gas (2)
Miscellaneous
5
3
5
5
375
Air chiller unit
Miscellaneous
3
5
1
5
75
RAS pumps - 8, 6 used
at a time
Final Clarification
5
3
1
5
75
Table 8.3. Definition of Ratings to Accompany Appenc
ix H.
Definitions of Ratings
Frequency of Use
1 = Infrequent use (< 1 / day)
3 = Moderate use (> 1 / day)
5 = Frequent use (24 hours / day 7 days / week)
Potential for Energy Savings
1 = No potential (0%)
3= Potential (1% -25%)
5 = Significant potential (>25%)
Cost of Implementing Energy Savings
1 = Significant cost (>$10,000)
3 = Moderate cost (<$10,000)
5 = No cost ($0)
Energy Intensity
1 = Low intensity
3 = Moderate intensity
5 = High intensity
Significance
Determined by multiplying each row.
9. Basis for Objectives and Targets Selection. New.
Pilot utilities use Table 9.1, which was developed for this project, to make a final decision on
priority energy conservation measures. This table is not in the Guidebook.
40
-------
Table 9.1 Basis for Objective and Target Selection
Activity
Operation
Legal / Other
Requirements
Technological
Opportunities
Financial /
Operational
Opportunities
Interested
Parties
Selected
Activities
10. Objectives and Target Worksheet and Performance Indicator Worksheet, Guidebook
p. 44-52, Appendix I
Tables 10.1 and 10.2 are similar. Pilot utilities merged these tables into the Energy Improvement
Plan, Table 10.3. Pilot utilities used the right column in Table 10.3 in place of Appendix N in
the Guidebook, Energy Improvement Management Programs Progress Review Worksheet.
Table 10.1 Objectives and Target Table {Guidebook p. 46 and Appendix I)
Objective
Target
Timeframe
Table 10.2. Performance Indicator Worksheet {Guidebook p. 49, 50, 52, and Appendix I)
Target
Performance Indicator
Data Source
Table 10.3. Energy Improvement Plan (revised Appendix I and Appendix J)
Energy Improvement Goal #
Activitv:
Operation:
Objective:
Target: reduce % bv Date
Task
Responsible Party
Timeframe
Performance
Measure
Comments on
Key Subtasks
41
-------
Attachment 5. Monthly profiles at 2 wastewater treatment plants
The profiles below give a picture of energy used at two WWTPs in the Pilot. It is clear
that natural gas use is weather dependent, likely due to building loads and digester
heating. These utilities heat office buildings, pump stations, and large buildings that
house equipment. Buildings call for a different type of intensity metric than for
wastewater equipment. Further investigations should explore better accounting for the
heating and air conditioning at water utility buildings, for example by reporting it
separately as a function of floor area or space volume rather than MG.
Wit hiri-year trends fo
D
*
I
*
* t j-ilr-g-tn l» te
WWTP Example i
two WWTPs
4OQ.0CO
isa.oea
Apr-07 Nov-9? Jun-WS D*c-0ft riim Mn-10 *>of [0 fefe li
Month
* 1 florlrx?!
WWTP Example 2
42
-------
Attachment 6. Format for a Cumulative Annual Report
ANNUAL REPORT
LAFAYETTE WWTW
LAFAYETTE ELECTRICITY USED, KWH
LAFAYETTE ELECTRICITY COST, $ BILLED
Calendar
Year
Primary Electric
Meter
Second
Electric
Meter
Total kWh
Calendar
Year
Primary
Electric
Meter
Second Electric
Meter
Total $
$/kWh
2010
3,259,495
4,722,734
7,982,229
2010
$ 223,236
$ 288,385
$ 511,621
$ 0.06
2009
3,433,004
4,837,554
8,270,558
2009
$ 223,325
$ 300,236
$ 523,561
$ 0.06
2008
3,722,673
5,115,705
8,838,378
2008
$ 226,265
$ 284,236
$ 510,501
$ 0.06
2007
4,540,453
5,712,201
10,252,654
2007
$ 232,652
$ 270,673
$ 503,325
$ 0.05
LAFAYETTE NATURAL GAS USED, THERM
LAFAYETTE NATURAL GAS, $ BILLED
ENERGY INTENSITY
Calendar
Year
Gas meter
Total Therm
Calendar
Year
Gas meter
$/therm
Calendar
Year
Electrical
Intensity
(kWh/MG)
2010
61,440
2010
$ 43,022
$ 0.70
2010
1,196
2009
48,101
2009
$ 34,123
$ 0.71
2009
1,141
2008
118,177
2008
$ 123,606
$ 1.05
2008
1,112
2007
120,960
2007
$ 121,292
$ 1.00
2007
1,517
LAFAYETTE FLOW
LAFAYETTE
GHG
Energy Star
Rating
Year
avg DAILY(MGD)
(MG)
Year
(MtC02e)
2010
18.34
6,677
2010
6,028
76
2009
19.91
7,249
2009
6,152
69
2008
21.78
7,950
2008
6,916
68
2007
18.57
6,761
2007
7,916
55
12,000
Lafayette WWTP
Electrical Energy Use
10,000
M
1,000
2,000
2007
2008 2009 2010
Caledar Year
2011
Lafayette WWTP
Electrical Energy Intensity
1,600
g i'500
J 1,400
5 1,300
| 1,200
i 1,100
I 1,000
900
800
~ 1,517
1,112 V
+ 1,196
2006 2007
2008 2009
Calendar Year
2010 2011
43
------- |