1. June 24, 2011

2. 2 Welcome Background of research project Scope of the project Review minutes from February 19, 2011 Progress update Schedule and deliverables Solicit volunteers for project tasks Next meeting plan Adjournment

3. 3-4% of the nation’s electricity is consumed by the water and wastewater industry (Raucher et al. 2008) About 99% of the electricity use at groundwater plants and 91% of the electricity use at surface water plants could be associated with pumping (Carlson et al. 2007) Energy savings potential in water and wastewater utilities has been estimated to be 31 billion kWh (CEC, 2005) Annual O&M cost of a water utility (Means, 2004) 3 Pumping energy in drinking water facilities (Carlson et al., 2007)

4. During the five-year period of 2002 to 2006, SCE tested the wire-to-water efficiency of 19,851 pumps (SCE, 2007) SCE observed that the efficiencies of pumping systems for water applications varied from 55-59% ItemsValue No. of pump tested19,851 No. of pumps needing repair12,399 GWh/yr consumptions of pumps tested needing repair 2,697 Estimated kWh/yr saved for all pump at 100% implementation rate 34,092 4 Source (SCE, 2007)

5. Components ( such as pump, motor) with high efficiencies alone are NOT enough for ensuring a pump system works with maximum efficiency A good design of the complete system to achieve energy efficient operation is needed 5 UN-Energy (2010) Motor systems efficiency supply curves, published by United nations industrial development organization..

6. Pump wire-to-water efficiency improvement Periodic pump efficiency testing and/or continuous real-time pump efficiency readings “Intelligent” pumping system controls Appropriate design/application of variable speed drives Annual energy, cost, and carbon savings estimation associated with efficiency improvements Tools for utility staff to manage and provide flexibility in pumping systems operation in order to save energy 6

7. 7 Welcome Background of research project Scope of the project Review minutes from February 19, 2011 Progress update Schedule and deliverables Solicit volunteers for project tasks Next meeting plan Adjournment

8. Literature review regarding pumping systems Pump and motor products survey for energy efficiency Energy monitoring tool survey Task 1 – International review of literature and identification of key research elements Identify and survey utilities Conduct case studies Collect required information for the guidance manual Task 2 – Survey and case study of selected water utilities Pump station design and operation principles for energy efficiency Real time monitoring for energy evaluation Communication plan for energy efficient design and operation Task 3 – Develop guidance manual Pump efficiency Energy efficiency Life cycle cost assessment GHG emission Task 4 – Develop software tool 8

9. 9

10. 10 Welcome Background of research project Scope of the project Review minutes from February 19, 2011 Progress update Schedule and deliverables Solicit volunteers for project tasks Next meeting plan Adjournment

11. 11 Pump industry executive support Reference HI intellectual property Consensus review and collaboration

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14 Identify committee members Role and commitments of the members Format of the communication Benefits/drawbacks of participation

15. 15 Welcome Background of research project Scope of the project Review minutes from February 19, 2011 Progress update Schedule and deliverables Solicit volunteers for project tasks Next meeting plan Adjournment

16. Conduct a review of literature pertaining to pump station design and operation as it relates to energy efficiency Identify the knowledge gaps and key drivers for energy efficient pump station design and operation 16 A draft review will be submitted to WaterRF with the next progress report Draft review will also be sent to the HI Committee for review

17. 17 Specific Problem: Operators were “throttling” the raw water intake pumps in an effort to save energy by avoiding switching pumps Solution: Developed clear guidance and procedure on when to switch pumps and when to throttle Energy Savings Reduction from 2048 kWh/MG to 1866 kWh/MG plant (i.e., 8% reduction) For 1 st year, process reduced energy use by 5,000 MWh/yr Economic Evaluation: Approximately $400,00 annual savings at minimal costs

18. 18 Specific Problem: Difference in summer and winter demands, hydraulic bottleneck in distribution system Solution Replaced 400 hp raw water pump with two 300 hp pumps for winter Installed an altitude valve to optimize tank storage, enabling increased off-peak pumping Energy Savings Pump changes resulted in a energy saving of 473,500 kWh Optimizing off-peak pumping reduced peak demands by 363 kW Economic Evaluation: Payback on pump change was 4 years ($35,000 annually) and for altitude valve was 2 years ($12,500 annually)

19. 19 Specific Problem Station had nine pumps installed in 1950s-60s with extra small pumps used to fine tune the flow output from the station. Two small pumps were operated at 52% efficiency; one of the motors failed Solution: Variable speed drives and high efficiency motors were installed Energy Savings: Original specific energy was 0.236 kWh/m3; improved specific energy was 0.182 kWh/m3; Overall energy saving 735 MWh per year (approximately 8%) Economic Evaluation: Variable speed drives installment had benefit to cost ratio of 1.42 at $0.08/kWh; High efficiency motors installment had benefit to cost ratio of 1.22

20. 20 Specific Problem Up to 3 pumps out of 4 were required to run in parallel Pumping system between the plant pump station and storage reservoir has a relatively large station head (54 m) with a relatively low friction head (3 m) VFD was fitted 10 years ago; little analysis was done on benefits The Pump ran 66% of the time at 22% efficiency (90% of full speed) Solution: Based on pump test results, inefficient pump was selected to be stand-by Energy Savings: Annual energy saving was 242,000 kWh Economic Evaluation: Operating practice was changed at no cost

21. 21 Specific Problem: Simple control system, only based on pressure. Solution Operating pressure derived from delivery flow-rate Implementation of control algorithm (PLC programming) Energy Savings Before pumps were operational at 195 MWh/GL. After pumps were operational 185 MWh/GL Economics Total cost was no more than $5, 000 Payback: <1 month

22. 22 Specific Problem: Cast iron pump developed graphitization, major refurbishment of the pumps was required Solution New coating to pump casing volute and impeller was employed Epoxy coating (Belzona 1341) to pump impeller, epoxy coating (Thortex Ceramitech CR) to pump body and lid Energy Savings: Before 0.468 kWh/kL and after 0.378 kWh/kL Economic Evaluation Total cost was $20, 000 Annual saving was $6,220 and payback: <3.2 yrs

23. 23 Ranjiv Goonetilleke (2011) Hybrid pumping: using a natural gas engine and electric motor, yields the lowest possible energy costs with the greatest reliability, presented in SoCalGas Seminar.

24. 24 Ranjiv Goonetilleke (2011) Hybrid pumping: using a natural gas engine and electric motor, yields the lowest possible energy costs with the greatest reliability, presented in SoCalGas Seminar.

25. Identify critical water industry needs that the guidance manual and software tools should address Select up to five case study scenarios Collect data for the guidance manual and software tool from survey data and case study scenarios 25

26. Mobile Area Water and Sewer System, AL City of Glendale, AZ City of Fairfield, CA Sweetwater Authority, CA Placer County Water Agency, CA Palmdale Water District, CA Metropolitan Water District, CA California Water Service Company, CA Sacramento Suburban Water District, CA City of Sacramento, CA San Juan Water District, CA Helix Water District, CA City of Aurora, CO Minneapolis Department of Public Works, MN Southern Nevada Water Authority, NV Greater Cincinnati Water Works, OH Clean Water Services, OR Fort Worth Water Department, TX Benbrook Water Authority, TX Denton Water Utilities, TX Tarrant Regional Water District, TX Arlington Water Utilities, TX City of Burleson, TX Tampa Bay Water, FL City of Elgin, IL 26

27. 27 Questionnaire was distributed to the participating utilities Monthly conference call is on-going with the utilities Seven utilities responded with the completed questionnaire and others are expected to reply in the upcoming weeks Collected questionnaire will be categorized in important areas in order to select case studies

28. 28 Welcome Background of research project Scope of the project Review minutes from February 19, 2011 Progress update Schedule and deliverables Solicit volunteers for project tasks Next meeting plan Adjournment

29.  Start date: January, 2011  End date: September, 2012 29

30. 30 Welcome Background of research project Scope of the project Review minutes from February 19, 2011 Progress update Schedule and deliverables Solicit volunteers for project tasks Next meeting plan Adjournment

31. 31 Technical review of the project deliverable Provide information on emerging energy efficient products/concepts Data share based on other studies/reports

32. 32 Welcome Background of research project Scope of the project Review minutes from February 19, 2011 Progress update Schedule and deliverables Solicit volunteers for project tasks Next meeting plan Adjournment

33. 33 Review question survey results Review case study concepts Review the guidebook outline

34. 34 Thank You Constantino Senon, PE constantino.m.senon@us.mwhglobal.com Mohammad Badruzzaman, Ph.D., PE mohammad.badruzzaman@us.mwhglobal.com

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37 Specific Problem Due to clogging, the pumping head increased up to 10 meters. Groundwater level has a 2 meter seasonal variation Mutual influence on collection between wells can have an effect on the level of about 5 meter Solution: Variable speed drives were installed at the low pressure pumps of 11 new wells (of the 30) Energy Savings About 5 m pumping head could be gained Total energy gain was 105,000 kWh/y for 11 pumps (@0.022kWh/m3 saving) Economic Evaluation: Equipment cost 3,000 Euro per pump (about 1,000 Euro subsidized) Pay back period was about 2.5 years