Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/255052
24 | 7th - 13th February 2014 | utILIty WeeK Operations & Assets ing service expectations from consumers; and the ongoing need to increase operating efficiency. Deploying smart meters is an essential first step towards fully smart water networks, which would help water companies to man- age all these challenges. This is because AMI networks can be used to connect other intel- ligent devices – for example, temperature/ pressure sensors and district meters – ena- bling companies to continually detect leaks, control pressure and ultimately manage water balance in real time. Moves towards smart meters and smart networks in the UK are also in line with global trends (see box). Benefits Migration to smart puts many potential ben- efits on the table for the water industry, its customers and the country. These include: • More efficient operations: faster leak detection and repair; better fault finding; greater network visibility; enhanced sup- ply/demand planning; and better capital investment/maintenance targeting. • Customer service: Providing customers with clear, detailed information on their water usage and consumption patterns, enabling them to adjust their behaviour to save water, energy and money. More regular interaction with customers would also provide new relationship opportuni- ties for companies. • Environment: Lower consumption and reduced leakage enable reduced abstrac- tion; this in turn cuts carbon emissions from water treatment and distribution processes. • Resilience: reduced danger of demand outstripping supply. • Flexibility: the frequency and extent of data collection are easily adjustable with AMI, facilitating short notice trials, ad hoc fault diagnosis and accurate cus- tomer query resolution. • Affordability: granular consumption information could be used to inform social tariff design and entitlements to other hardship schemes. Some of these benefits will be of particu- lar interest to companies in water-stressed areas. Others, such as more efficient opera- tion and improved customer service, will be of interest across the board. Artesia's Marshallsay comments: "It natu- rally falls to companies in water-stressed areas to take the lead. Metering is key to managing water resources… But there will be interest from others over time – trials are being planned by non-water-stressed compa- nies too." Sensus marketing director Andy Slater concurs: "As networks move from AMR to smart, the cost benefit of AMI will start to work in favour of companies outside water- stressed areas… [Smart metering] really lights up the whole network and potentially changes water company management capa- bilities from reactive to proactive. Companies currently work off a lot of assumptions; with smart, a lot of financial benefits flow from better network management and customer engagement." Thames' Plumb even expects customer pull to develop over time. He says: "For us, it's a pure water resources problem – meter- ing is the best way of tackling that. But other companies may well ask, 'should we be metering?' Aer all, even if customers use the same amount of water, over 50 per cent of bills will go down. I expect customers will demand metering in the future. Particularly if you move from one [smart metered] area to another, you might well ask your new sup- plier, 'why can't I see what I'm using, like I used to?'." Smart technology choices Before reaping any of these benefits, a water company moving to AMI will have to make a number of correct technical and operational choices. Aside from choosing the meter, they need to consider which communications infrastructure to use; which data services and analytic capabilities to deploy; and how much to invest in back-end IT systems. Woods cautions: "They need to be clear about what benefits they want and what data they can use – whether their systems can handle it." A company whose main objective is to defer the capital cost of pipe replacement, for instance, would have different data, data collection frequency and IT system needs from one whose primary goal was improving customer service. Thames Water is on the brink of making such decisions. It is in the process of pro- curing smart meters and communications infrastructure for the next 15 years, with con- tracts due to be awarded in May. Plumb says ideally Thames wants to deploy the same meter everywhere and while cost is of course important, "I want a technology that works". He elaborates: "My number one priority is getting reliable and accurate data from the system. I have made a promise to customers about what we can give them and I want to keep it." There is a range of possibilities in terms of the meters and communications networks available. Plumb is "agnostic" about which is the right answer, but he is "looking for a supplier that is willing to put its neck on the block on connectivity and data quality". Communications network The choice of communications infrastructure will therefore be vital for Thames and any other company that goes down the smart route. Water meters come with a range of practical considerations that in effect rule out some of the network options available. Unlike energy smart meters, they have no mains power source, so they require a bat- brought to you in association with We could make a good business case for drive-by AMR based on the whole life cost of running the asset." Darren bentham, southern Water sMArt wAter world Navigant forecasts the global smart water networks market will expand from an annual revenue of $1.1 billion in 2013 to more than $3.3 billion in 2022, at a compound annual growth rate of 12.8 per cent. Cumulative in- vestment over that period is expected to total more than $20 billion. According to Water 20/20, a report based on interviews and surveys with 183 global wa- ter utilities, conducted by metering specialist Sensus, smart water networks are capable of saving 25 billion m 3 of water and could yield annual savings of up to $12.5 billion. The annual savings identified include: $4.6 billion from improved leakage and pressure management; $5.2 billion from dynamic asset management tools that enable optimised capital expenditure allocation; $2.1 billion from streamlining and automating network operations; and $600 million from automated water quality sampling and monitoring.