Energy Audit initial findings

1. Energy Audit of WASAs
Engr. Abid Hussainy
Sr Specialist Environment Division
The Urban Unit Lahore
22th February 2015 ( PWON Bhurbhan)

2. What is ENERGY AUDIT?

3. PCGIP- DLI 4 (Revenue Collection System)
• To Reduce Energy Consumption
• Energy Efficient system
• Improve service delivery -
• Safety for the Staff
• Asset Life is improved
Why Energy Audit in
WASAs?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Old Energy Bill New Energy
Bill
Billing

4. Role of Urban Unit

5. Urban Unit Energy Audit Team
Engr. Abid Shah Hussainy – Task Manager
Engr. Rao Ali Raza
Mr. Syed M. Usman Ali
Mr. Abdul Basit

6. 2 Day Energy Audit Training of WASA officials in
Collaboration with NED (24-25 October, 2014) by
International Trainer /Expert Mr Hashmi from Canada
• Training to 15 WASA officials from 5 Cities
• EA Exercises
• Development of EA Tools (Technical, Billing, Conditional Survey &
Energy Audit Performa) for TWs, DSs, W&WWT Plants.
Hands on Training in the field by Urban Unit Experts in All
WASAs ( 25 November- 19 December)
• Instrumentation
• Support in Data Collection
• On Site Energy Audit Training
• Conditional Survey
Urban Unit Capacity Building Initiative

7. Energy Audit Activities Status
0
20
40
60
80
100
Technical Data/ EA
Assets
Billing Detail June 13 to
June 14
Conditional Survey
Available Data Entry &
Analysis by UU
WASA Lahore
0
20
40
60
80
100
Technical Data/ EA
Assets
Billing Detail June 13 to
June 14
Conditional Survey
Available Data Entry &
Analysis by UU
WASA Rawalpindi
0
20
40
60
80
100
Technical Data/ EA
Assets
Billing Detail June
June 14
Conditional Survey
Available Data Entry &
Analysis by UU
WASA Gujranwala
0
20
40
60
80
100
Technical Data/ EA
Assets
Billing Detail June 13 to
June 14
Conditional Survey
vailable Data Entry &
Analysis by UU
WASA Multan
0
20
40
60
80
100
Technical Data/ EA
Assets
Billing Detail June 13 to
June 14
Conditional Survey
Available Data Entry &
Analysis by UU
WASA Faisalabad

8. Tubewell & Disposal Station Detail
491
362
102 82 67
99
21 43 22
Lahore Rawalpindi Multan Faisalabad Gujranwala
Supply Tubewells & Disposal Stations
Supply Stations Disposal Stations

9. EA -Asset Information
WASAs No. of Pump- Motor Sets Design Capacity
(Cusec)
Lahore 776 5668.5
Rawalpindi 362 109
Multan 161 1061
Faisalabad 222 1284
Gujranwala 112 640
Total 1633 8762.5
MGD 5663

10. Comparison of Load Capacity MW ( Installed Vs
Sanctioned)
64.6
6.8
20.2
11.0
6.5
78.3
11.5
14.3
19.9
7.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
WASA Lahore WASA Rawalpindi WASA Multan WASA Faisalabad WASA
Gujranwala
Installed Load (MW) Sanctioned Load (MW)

11. Energy Audit
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

12. Conditional Survey & Analysis-Part 1

13. Conditional Survey
• Provide an orientation of the entire facility to observe the condition
of each asset and the factors those influencing the asset condition
towards operation.
• Identify areas that warrant further examination for operational &
maintenance practices and potential energy management
opportunities.
• Identifies obvious opportunities for the room of improvements in the
operation and management side.

14. Conditional Survey Parameters-24 Parameters
Physical
Condition of
Pump
Lubricant
Leakage
Water Leakage
Cable
Insulation
Cable Sizing
Transformer
Condition
Energy Meter
Condition
Performance
of Starter
Pump
Vibration
Pump Noise
Motor
Temperature
Control
Cooling Fan
Condition
Piping
Condition
Condition of
Return Valve
Pressure
Gauge
Condition
Ventilation Civil Structure
Generator
Condition
Power Factor
Improvement
Capacitor
Safety
Equipment
Chlorinator
Condition
Log Book
Earthing
Condition
Screening
Chamber
Condition
Lighting
Condition
Human
Signaling Signs
SoPs

15. Conditional Assessment of E-Assets
•Rating <=40 % Poor
•Rating <=60% Fair
•Rating <=70 % Good
•Rating >70 % Excellent

16. WASA Lahore – Conditional Survey Result &
Financing
Conditional Assessment
Rating <=40 % Poor
Rating <=60% Fair
Rating <=70 % Good
Rating >70 % Excellent
Poor
21%
Fair
64%
Good
7%
Excellent
8%
DISPOSAL STATIONS
Poor
19%
Fair
60%
Good
16%
Excellent
5%
TUBEWELL STATIONS
Rehabilitation Cost
for TW & DS
62.10 million
(BOQs for
Rehabilitation have
been Prepared)

17. WASA Multan – Conditional Survey Result
Conditional Assessment
Rating <=40 % Poor
Rating <=60% Fair
Rating <=70 % Good
Rating >70 % Excellent
Poor
4%
Fair
37%
Good
21%
Excellent
38%
CONDITIONAL SURVEY RESULT -
DISPOSAL STATION WASA MULTAN
Poor
3%
Fair
56%
Good
41%
Excellent
0%
CONDITIONAL SURVEY RESULT -
TUBEWELL STATIONS
Rehabilitation Cost
for TW & DS
11.16 million
(BOQs for
Rehabilitation have
been Prepared)

18. WASA Faisalabad – Conditional Survey Result
Conditional Assessment
Rating <=40 % Poor
Rating <=60% Fair
Rating <=70 % Good
Rating >70 % Excellent
Poor
42%
Fair
51%
Good
7%
Excellent
0%
DISPOSAL STATION
Poor
2% Fair
0%
Good
39%
Excellent
59%
TUBE WELL STATION
Rehabilitation Cost
for TW & DS
6.50 million
(BOQs for
Rehabilitation
have been
Prepared)

19. WASA Rawalpindi – Conditional Survey Result
Conditional Assessment
Rating <=40 % Poor
Rating <=60% Fair
Rating <=70 % Good
Rating >70 % Excellent
Poor
44%
Fair
56%
TUBE WELL STATIONS
Rehabilitation Cost
for TW & DS
32.58 million
(BOQs for
Rehabilitation have
been Prepared)

20. WASA Gujranwala – Conditional Survey Result
Conditional Assessment
Rating <=40 % Poor
Rating <=60% Fair
Rating <=70 % Good
Rating >70 % Excellent
Poor
34%
Fair
14%
Good
33%
Excellent
19%
DISPOSAL STATIONS
Poor
29%
Fair
23%
Good
15%
Excellent
30%
Not
Operational
3%
TUBEWELL STATIONS
Rehabilitation Cost
for TW & DS
8.01 million
(BOQs for
Rehabilitation have
been Prepared)

21. Energy Audit Findings

22. Annual Electric Billing on TW & DS
WASAs Sanctioned Load
from WAPDA
(Mega Watt-MW)
Bill Amount
Fiscal Year 2013-
2014
(PKR-In Million)
Low Power Factor
Penalty
(PKR-In Million)
Lahore 78.3 3092.4 21.4
Rawalpindi 11.5 382.4 1.9
Multan 14.3 355.5 5.5
Faisalabad 19.9 580.1 6.3
Gujranwala 7.4 286.9 5.1
Total 131.4 4697.4 40.2

23. Annual Billing & Annual Low Power Factor
Penalty
0
5
10
15
20
25
Lahore Rawalpindi Multan Faisalabad Gujranwala
21.4
2.0
5.5 6.3 5.1
Low Power Factor Penalty
(PKR-In Million)
Power Factor Definition
Ratio b/w active power to apparent power is called
the Power Factor.
Disadvantages of Low Power Factor:-
1. Penalty from Electric Power Supply Company
Penalty Formula (PKR)= (0.9-Actual PF)*2*Energy
Charges
2. Large Line Loss (Copper Loss)
3. High input current requirement
4. Large KVA Rating of Transformer & large size of
equipment requirement
5. Greater Conductor /cable Size & Cost
6. Poor Voltage Regulation & Large Voltage Drop
7. Low efficiency of equipment
Gadgets for Improving Power Factor:-
1. Static Capacitors (Fixed Compensation )
2. Automatic Power Factor Improvement Relay
(Automatic Compensation)
3,092.5
580.1
355.5 286.9 382.4
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
WASA Lahore WASA Faisalabad WASA Multan WASA
Gujranwala
WASA
Rawalpindi
Bill Amount Fiscal Year 2013-2014
(PKR-In Million)

24. Low Power Factor Penalty PAID by WASAs
Since PCGIP Inception
42.8
12.6 11.0 10.1
3.9
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
WASA Lahore WASA Faisalabad WASA Multan WASA
Gujranwala
WASA Rawalpindi
LPF PENALTY PAID- 80.4 MILLION PKR
(LAST TWO YEARS)

25. Costing of LPF Correction of DS & TW
WASAs Annual Low Power
Factor Penalty
(PKR-In Million)
Cost to Remove L.P.F
Penalty (using
Automatic Power
Factor Relay / Static
Capacitors)
(PKR- In Million)
Payback Time
(Months)
Lahore 21.4 11.4 7
Rawalpindi 1.9 0.7 4
Multan 5.5 3.9 9
Faisalabad 6.3 3.7 7
Gujranwala 5.1 3.1 8
Total 40.2 22.8

26. LPF Savings for Next Three Years- 2014-2017
64.2
18.8
16.6 15.2
5.90.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
WASA Lahore WASA Faisalabad WASA Multan WASA Gujranwala WASA Rawalpindi
Projected Savings 2016-2017 120.6 Million PKR

27. Measurement

28. Flow Meter
Power Analyzer
Tachometer
General Tool Kit
Vibrometer
Well Sounder
Temperature Gun
Safety Kit
Camera
Energy Audit Instruments

29. Equipment Procurement- Status
WASAs W- Faisalabad W- Lahore W- Rawalpindi W- Multan W- Gujranwala
Status Procured Tendered Purchasing
Stage
Tendered Not Procured
due to
Insufficient
budget.

30. Energy Audit Results – Chiniot & JICA Tube
wells in WASA Faisalabad
Tube well
Name
No.s Avg. Motor
Efficiency
Avg. Pump
Efficiency
Recommendations
Chiniot- Jhang
Branch Canal
(KSB &
Siemens)
21 83.58% 58.95% i) There is no need to replace these motors & Pumps
as they are operating at acceptable efficiency range.
ii) 17 tube wells require PF improvement.
Automatic PFI compensating up to 40KVARS should
be installed on these tube wells.
JICA-
KSB &
Siemens
25 83.57% 75.79% i) There is no need to replace motors & pumps as
they are operating at acceptable efficiency range.
ii) 09 tube wells require PF improvement.
Automatic PFI compensating up to 25KVARS should
be installed on these tube wells.

31. Challenges in Energy Audit (EA)
Data Collection
Data Provision
Equipment
Dedicated Team
• Field Staff
• High Response Time
• Systematic Record Inadequate
• No EA Equipment
• Funds
• No Training of Instruments
• Work Overload
• EA Experience
• Lack of Capacity

32. Recommendation of Energy Audit – Part 1 and 2
Energy Audit Recommendations WASA Rough Cost in Rs
Million
Conditional Survey Improvement of All
Assets as poor and
Average
All WASA from Power &
Energy Head of PCGIP
120.39
PF Corrections 1. Static Capacitors
(Fixed Compensation )
2. Automatic Power
Factor Improvement
Relay (Automatic
Compensation
All WASAs from Power
and Energy Head of
PCGIP
22.87
Equipment Immediate Purchase of
EA Equipment/Set –
All WASAs except WASA F 1.5 -2

33. Energy Management Plan
Step 1
• Conditional Rehabilitation – Completed – Costing done and need procurement
Step 2
• Power Factor Correction
• 10% Saving Potential- Completed – Costing done and need procurement -
Step 3
• Energy Auditing- Procurement of Firm
Step 4
• Efficiency Improvement- 4th Year Procurement Plans
• 15% Saving Potential -
Step 5
• Capacity Building in Energy Management- & System for Monitoring

34. Comparison of Annual Billing after EMP
Saving Potential 706 Million PKR
3092.5
382.4 355.5
580.1 286.9
2319.4
286.8 266.6 435.1 215.2
Lahore Rawalpindi Multan Faisalabad Gujranwala
Annual Billing Vs Expected Billing after EA
Bill AmountFiscal Year 2013-2014 (PKR-In Million)
Bill Amount After Implementing EMOs (PKR-In Million)

35. Cost of Energy Management Plan
Component Cost (Million PKR) Time Lines Remarks
Asset Improvement 120.39 Dec 2016
PF Correction 22.87 Dec 2016
Replacement of Pumps 161.50 Dec 2016 Replacement of 316
pumps
Replacement of Motors 129.48 Dec 2016 Replacement of 316
motors
Capacity Building &
Monitoring
5.00 Dec 2016
Total 439.24

36. Add on Asset Management MIS Application
• Each Asset has Unique Asset Number /Application Number
1. Attachment of Electricity Bill
 Attach Electricity Bill from DISCO
 Entry of Monthly Bill Amount, Payment, Power Factor and Power Factor Penalty
 Responsible Authority: Concern XEN/SDO
 Frequency: 1 Month updating
2. Conditional of Asset
 Conditional Assessment of Asset
 Picture of Every Asset
 Responsible Authority: Concern XEN/SDO
 Frequency: 6 Month for updateing

37. Add on Asset Management Application continues …
• 3Efficiency of Pump & Motor :Asset Efficiency
 Data Entry of Name Plate Data of Pump & Motor (Year, Make, Sr. No. Rating,
Head, Flow, Pump Type, RPM & Efficiency . Class )
 Record of Power Parameters (kW, KVARS, PF, Volts, RPM and Amps)
 Record of Head, Water Table Depth, Flow & Pressure Gauge
 Suction Length, Delivery Length, Suction & Delivery Dia, Drawdown
 Attachment of Pump Curve
 Highlight the Poor Efficiency Equipment
 Responsible Authority: Concern XEN/SDO
 Frequency: 6 Month

38. • O&M History- Cost Centre
 Rewinding History (Date, Copper (Kg) Required & Labor Cost)
 Bearing Replacement (Replacement Date, Greasing Date, Bearing No. & Cost)
 Pump Wear & Tear (Repairing /Replacement Date, Trimming Date & Labor
Cost)
 Valves Wear & Tear (Valve Type, Repairing/Replacement Date, Cost & Labor
Cost)
 Next O&M Frequency for Planning -
 Responsible Authority: Concern XEN/SDO
 Action Frequency: Quarterly

39. THANK
YOU