Water Efficiency July/August 2009 : Page 47
system leaks. As mentioned earlier, our utility monitors suspected leaks for a few days before we take action to alert the customer. But, if there is a break in the irrigation system, the customer can lose a large quantity of water very quickly. Plus, customers will see the same data our customer service personnel see. Already, access to this consumption information has helped representatives answer questions, resolve high- bill complaints and shorten their call-handling times. Quick ROI With all the benefits of fixed-network AMR sys- tems, I think many would be surprised by their affordability. In Leesburg, we currently bill for 1.5 billion The STAR Network meter transmitters installed inside meter pits are hermetically sealed, protecting internal components and batteries against damage from the elements. Or, look at the experience of Salt River Project (SRP), a water and electricity utility in Phoenix, AZ. There, more than 50,000 customers have signed up for M-Power, the company’s pre-paid electricity program, which provides program participants with an in-home display that shows people how much energy they’re using. According to SRP’s Web site, customers can look at the display screen and see how their costs change when they turn out a light or adjust the thermostat. That kind of insight has helped M-Power customers reduce their consumption by an average of 12.8% com- pared to energy use of customers in similar households. People like having that kind of control over their consump- tion. The utility’s Web site says, “Eighty-four percent of M-Power customers report being very satisfi ed with the program, and more than 90% believe they use energy more wisely as a result of being on the program.” It makes sense that having similar access to water consump- tion information will help customers conserve water resources and save themselves some money. At our utility, we saw how price- responsive consumers are when we raised our rates in 2006. By 2008, our billed-water and demand were down by 100 million gal- lons (7%) compared to 2006 numbers, and this decrease occurred despite the fact that our system grew by approximately 5% during that period. Having access to online consumption data will allow our customers to avoid what is referred to by some as a “high-use surcharge,” but it is actually a rate surcharge to encourage conser- vation. We bill our sewerage services throughout the year based on consumption from a customer’s winter-quarter meter reading, and we use that same amount of consumption as the base from which we measure high water use. If water use exceeds the winter quarter consumption by 35%, we add a 36% surcharge to the water rate for that quarter. Some bills top $1,000 or more. Those customers could benefi t from technology that helps them track usage and avoid the costly surcharge. And, online data could assist customers in fi nding their own w w w.w a t er efficienc y .net gallons of water per year at an average rate of $3.21 per thousand gallons. If just 10% of the reduction in unaccounted-for water we’ve seen since installing AMR could be attributed to the fi xed-base metering, the system would have delivered some $500,000 per year in revenue saved. Since the system cost the town roughly $2.2 million, it has already paid for itself. In fact, it paid for itself in less than fi ve years from the savings of unaccounted-for water alone. What’s more, the utility’s customer base has grown by 50% since adding AMR, but labor costs associated with meter reading have gone down, not up. When we started the metering project, we had two technicians working full time to cover all our meter- reading needs on a quarterly billing schedule. We still have those two technicians, although their jobs have changed.Meanwhile, we haven’t had to add any labor to keep up with the community’s growth. Finally, conservation is just good business. Water resources are fi nite. In many jurisdictions, they’re limited or downright scarce. Meanwhile, the cost of water and wastewater treatment isn’t getting any cheaper. Not long ago, someone asked me what advice I’d offer to other utilities thinking about fi xed-network AMR systems. I could only answer the question with another question: What are you waiting for? The technology is there and proven to be reliable. Unaccounted-for water equals water treatment costs you paid for but didn’t recover. It’s equal to revenue lost, and any utility could benefit fi nancially by reducing it. If you can cut your water loss to less than 5%, why aren’t you doing it? Even for a utility like Leesburg’s, a system currently with- out any water shortages, drought or constraints, fixed-base AMR has been easily justifi able. So, I’ll say it again: What are you waiting for? The time to do fi xed-base AMR is now. Randy Shoemaker is Utilities Director for Leesburg, VA. BLOGS, NEWS, THE LATEST ISSUE, & WEB-ONLY ARTICLES NOW ON WATEREFFIENCY.NET AMR/AMI IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. READ MORE AT: WWW.WATEREFFICIENCY.NET/AMR-AND-AMI we WATER EFFICIENCY 47
