Basic Energy Training and Energy Management Planning

67 Pages·2009·0.95 MB·English

BASIC ENERGY TRAINING & 
ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLANNING:  
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FOR 
WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 
A CASE STUDY IN PENNSYLVANIA 
Prepared by: 
Amy K. Glasmeier 
Barbara B. Kinne 
Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences 
August 2009
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 2 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................3
About the Project .............................................................................................................................4
Research Methodology ....................................................................................................................5
I. Municipal Water Systems and Energy Utilization ...............................................................6
II. Description of Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems in Appalachia ..........................9
Appalachia Presents Unusual Challenges ..............................................................10
Drinking Water ......................................................................................................10
Water Treatment Systems ......................................................................................10
Wastewater Treatment Systems .............................................................................11
Encouraging Water Efficiency ...............................................................................12
III. The Case for Energy Efficiency Training ..........................................................................13
IV. Existing Energy Efficiency Educational Resources ..........................................................18
V. Outline of Energy Efficiency Education and Training Content .........................................26
VI. Summary and Recommendations ......................................................................................30

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................32

Appendix I: Guidance Manuals, Tools, Resources ....................................................................35
Appendix II: Energy, Environmental, and Water/Wastewater Operator Certification Agencies
within the Appalachian Region ..............................................................................38
Appendix III: Federal and Select Non-Appalachian State Energy and Environmental Agencies
and Programs Relating to Water and Wastewater .................................................43
Appendix IV: Select Additional Organizations Involved in Water and Wastewater Treatment
Plant Education and Training .................................................................................46 
Appendix V: Small System Electric Power Use: Opportunities for Savings ..............................53

List of Figures
Figure 1: The Energy Pathway of Water and Wastewater Treatment .............................................7
Figure 2: NACWA Survey of Energy Use Graph (US EPA) ........................................................14
Figure 3: Portfolio Manager Wastewater Data Entry Page ...........................................................22
Figure 4: NYSERDA Case Study Example ...................................................................................23
Figure 5: How Adults Learn Best ..................................................................................................25

List of Tables
Table 1: Estimated Use of Water in the United States by Sector, 2000 (USGS) ............................7
Table 2: Range of Energy Intensities for Water Use Cycle .............................................................8
Table 3: Energy Intensity of Wastewater Treatment by Size and Level of Treatment ....................8
Table 4: Opportunities for Energy Efficiency Best Practices ........................................................17
Table 5: Detail on Energy Education for Facility Personnel Best Practice (from Table 4) ...........18
Table 6: Examples of Energy Training Programs Approved by MD Dept of Environment .........20
Table 7: Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle as Outlined in Existing Guidebooks or Training ..................29
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 3 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Being relative newcomers to the study of water and wastewater treatment plants, we have many
people to thank for their time and input—phone messages, emails, conversations at workshops
and conferences, Web access pointers—in helping us understand the complexity of the issues
that these systems face every day, all day. Their daily efforts, individually and collectively
through their respective agencies and organizations, keep our drinking water clean and protect
our environment—their primary mission. As this report shows, significant progress is being
made at the intersection of this mission with energy efficiency. Our thanks to:

Larry Knox - Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Chris Rice -
Maryland Energy Administration, Monty Montgomery - Mississippi Development
Authority/Natural Resources, Jason Barrett - Extension Associate, Mississippi State
University, Matt Yonkin and Kathleen O’Connor – New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, Len Hoey - North Carolina Energy Office, Steve Terry – North
Carolina State University Industrial Assessment Center, Kathy Alexander - Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Bob Aylward - Savannah River National Laboratory,
Lori Munkeboe - Fleming Training Center of the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, Wayne Staples - Water Division, Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, and Jeff Herholdt - West Virginia Division of Energy, Kammy
Halterman - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Paul Strope -
National Rural Water Association, Tom Essig - RCAP Solutions, Carol Paul -
Pennsylvania Rural Water Association, Douglas DeAngelis - Altoona City Authority, Joe
Sullivan - Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, Alison Shuler - Penn State-
Harrisburg Environmental Training Center, Don Hershey - AWWA-PA Section, Kurt
Ollinger - Office of Water Programs, California State University-Sacramento.

We would also like to thank the staff of the Local Development Districts of Pennsylvania’s
Energy Partnership, a group that deals every day with raising awareness of and offering solutions
for energy efficiency issues that confront local governments, hospitals, schools and nonprofits:
Bill Rupert - NWPRPDC, Barry Mayes - NCPPDC, Matt Williams - NTRPDC, Kurt Bauman
and Kate Feissner – NEPA, Megan Epler and Stacy Richards – SEDA-COG, Brandon Carson
and Haley Sankey – SAPDC, and Ryan Falcone and Denise McClafferty – SPC.

A core group of individuals provided much of the background information and insight to place in
context the education and training resources we found during the course of our research: Barbara
McMillen - Area Specialist with USDA Rural Development, Corey Miller - Plant Manager for
University Area Joint Authority, Dennis Beck - Portage Municipal Water Authority and At-
Large Member for the Pennsylvania Rural Water Association, Thomas Brown - Water Quality
Operations Group Leader for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

A special note of gratitude is reserved for Dave Shimmel – Regional Manager for the Office of
Energy and Technology Deployment of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
He provided excellent instruction, access to resources, and his time.

Cover: Stock photographs from http://www.fotosearch.com
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 4 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

ABOUT THE PROJECT

Water and wastewater treatment plants are the most energy-intensive facilities operated by local
governments, accounting for anywhere from 30–60% of a municipality’s total energy bill. Next
to operator salaries, electricity is the second highest operating cost, with the majority of this
electricity used for pumping. As energy prices rise, municipalities confront the need to rebalance
operations in response to higher costs. Key to addressing rising costs is an informed decision-
making team; and yet, in many municipalities, decision makers know little about the technical
side of water and wastewater treatment and even less about energy efficiency. The goal of this
project is to develop the elements of a leadership-training program on energy efficiency for
financial decision makers, supervisory personnel, and plant operators working in the fields of
water and wastewater treatment. Program criteria include energy savings, maintenance or
enhancement of environmental quality as related to energy usage, and professional development
of plant staff. Our aim is to identify those program elements that can be efficiently executed with
high uptake and good retention.

The project was stimulated by work we have been engaged in with Pennsylvania’s Local
Development Districts’ (LDDs) regional energy partnership, a program started in 2007 to help
local governments, schools, and nonprofits in 52 counties to reduce energy consumption and
costs. Key to reducing energy demand is tracking usage, so one of the LDDs’ first efforts was the
development of a procedure for conducting utility bill analyses (UBA). Upon completion of the
first demonstration utility bill analysis in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, the LDDs learned that the
single largest component of the municipality’s utility was its wastewater treatment plant. This
benchmarking service was a wake-up call for water and wastewater treatment plants.

Approached by the Appalachian Regional Commission’s (ARC) Washington office to propose a
research project around energy efficiency, Penn State researchers offered a plan to develop the
knowledge base by formulating a training program around energy efficiency targeted toward
local decision makers. The original proposal had three phases. Phase one involved data
collection and document synthesis on current training practices in support of energy efficiency
for water and wastewater treatment facilities. Phase two was proposed as a demonstration project
in which knowledge developed in phase one would be used to formulate and execute a training
program for community decision makers in the ARC region. Phase three was to be a competition
among local governments to win a water and wastewater treatment upgrade upon completion of
energy efficiency training. This report constitutes the first phase of the project. In this discussion,
we review the extant literature on energy, water and wastewater treatment. We compile
examples of effective training programs. Finally, we make recommendations for steps going
forward.

This project has drawn extensively from the learning experiences of the Pennsylvania LDDs,
which run a 52-county energy efficiency program for schools, hospitals, local governments, and
non-profits. Pennsylvania is particularly propitious as a site of investigation for several reasons:
1) the state is at a confluence of financial and environmental events where a decision maker’s
knowledge gap may impede a water system’s progress toward becoming more energy efficient;
2) Pennsylvania is facing a deregulation of electricity rates that could result in even higher
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 5 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

electricity costs; and 3) much of the state is under a federal mandate to clean up the Chesapeake
Bay. The state will be required to meet increasingly strict discharge standards. In turn, this offers
an opportunity to use regulatory compliance requirements to simultaneously achieve energy
savings. In this way, municipalities’ financial and environmental bottom lines can include
programs to improve water quality as well as energy management education and training
programs. These factors together present ideal conditions for an investigation of the value and
merits of a program designed to increase energy efficiency while reducing operating costs and
safeguarding the environment.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project is based on primary and secondary data collection. First, we explored energy
efficiency in water utilities by reviewing professional, academic, and municipal sources. In
addition, we attended training events, public presentations, and national conferences, and visited
water treatment facilities. We also contacted members of the ARC’s energy advisory committee
and other state and local officials recommended by ARC advisory committee members. We
attended two Pennsylvania Rural Water Association (PRWA) events: An energy efficiency
training course sponsored by Pennsylvania’s Rural Water Association and taught by Dave
Shimmel, P.E., with the state Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Office of Energy
Technology and Deployment, and Stephen Puzio, Water Quality Specialist also with DEP; and
PRWA’s annual convention which drew over 1,100 participants. We interviewed PRWA’s Pro-
Operator Training Series administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development
Program area specialists, DEP’s Water Quality Operations Group Leader, a Pennsylvania
Municipal Authorities Association representative, the National Rural Water Association’s United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Training Program, a plant operator for the
Altoona City Authority, the plant manager for the University Area Joint Authority, and a board
member for the Portage Municipal Water authority.

In addition to qualitative material collected from a variety of sources, we examined existing
management and operator training materials for water and wastewater utilities and focused on
energy efficiency and energy management aspects of these programs in all 13 Appalachian states
and for several states outside the Appalachian Region. These programs were identified through a
Web-based search of state agencies involved in operator licensure and certification. In general,
few certifying boards actually deliver their own programs; rather, they identify and approve
training programs that are developed and delivered by associations, universities and colleges,
environmental groups, and other professionals that deal with water supply and water quality
issues.

Through these efforts we identified viable and appropriate course content that would be most
pertinent to addressing the problems delineated by our professional and municipal sources.

The report is organized into six sections:

• Section I describes the role of energy in water and wastewater treatment services.
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 6 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

• Section II reviews the unique physical conditions of water supply and wastewater
treatment in Appalachia.
• Section III outlines the case for energy efficiency education and training to control costs
even as increasing regulation threatens to add costs. While this section is focused on
these issues in Pennsylvania, they are by no means unique to the state.
• In section IV, we provide a sampling of existing energy efficiency educational resources.
• Section V details proposed content for a high-quality, generic training program.
• Section VI offers a forward-looking discussion of the challenges facing water resource
managers.

SECTION I: Municipal Water Systems and Energy Utilization

To appreciate the importance of water and wastewater treatment in the energy budget of
municipalities, one may turn to a recently published report, The Carbon Foot Print of Water1by
Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspeil and Wendy Wilson of River Network, Inc., Portland, Oregon. Here,
the authors provide a highly readable and detailed analysis of the energy intensity and
concomitant carbon impact of water utilization in the U.S. This thorough assessment of water
and energy provides a detailed backdrop for our approach to knowledge dissemination for local
officials responsible for the operation of water systems.

The focus on water and wastewater treatment in the context of energy arises for three reasons.
First, water is an essential public health good that is required for healthy human existence. Water
supply and wastewater treatment are major components of the nation’s water budget. In the U.S.,
public water supply constitutes 11% of total water use in the country (see Table 1). Second,
water is neither everywhere and consistently available, nor available in the right amount and of
the required quality. Thus, for most communities, the acquisition of needed water requires
transportation, which in turn requires energy. Water is heavy, weighing 8.34 pounds per gallon.
For every gallon of water that needs to be transported, energy must be expended. Third, the
energy intensity of water and wastewater treatment depends on factors that vary across locations.
Energy intensity is affected by: quality of source water; pumping requirements to deliver water
to end users and to remove waste from pre-processed water; and the efficiency of the water
system and energy embedded in specific consumer end uses. Because of the unique nature of
water supply and wastewater treatment and the role context plays in water’s availability, quality,
and quantity, emphasizing energy savings can have big payoffs for small rural water treatment
systems.

1 Griffiths-Sattenspiel, Bevan and Wilson, Wendy. 2009. The Carbon Footprint of Water
by http://rivernetwork.org/resource-library/carbon-footprint-water. (Accessed July 29, 2009)
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 7 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE 1. ESTIMATED USE OF WATER IN THE UNITED STATES BY SECTOR, 2000 (USGS)2 

Sector  Daily Water Use (MGD) Annual Water Use (MG) % of Total
Public Supply  43,300 15,804,500 11.00%
Self‐Supply Domestic  3,590 1,310,350 <1%
Industrial  19,700 7,190,500 5.00%
Mining  3,490 1,273,850 <1%
Irrigation  137,000 50,005,000 34.00%
Livestock  1,760 642.400 <1%
Aquaculture  3,700 1,350.500 <1%
Thermoelectric  195,000 71,275,000 48.00%
U.S. Total:  407,540 148,752,100 100.00%
Source: Reproduced from Table 1.1, in The Carbon Foot Print of Water by Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspeil and Wendy Wilson of River

Network, Inc., Portland, Oregon. May 2009.

Water and wastewater treatment facilities draw the majority of their energy from electricity.
Stages of energy utilization take into account source and conveyance, treatment, distribution, end
use, and wastewater treatment. Figure 13 represents the system of energy consumption associated
with water and wastewater treatment provision. According to Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspeil and
Wendy Wilson, the energy intensity of municipal water systems ranges from 1050 kilowatt hours
per million gallons (kWh/MG) to 36,200 kWh/MG. The average range is from 1250 kWh/MG to
6500 kWh/MG.

2 Griffiths-Sattenspiel, Bevan and Wilson, Wendy. 2009. The Carbon Footprint of Water
by http://rivernetwork.org/resource-library/carbon-footprint-water (Accessed July 29, 2009)
3 Griffiths-Sattenspiel, Bevan and Wilson, Wendy. 2009. The Carbon Footprint of Water
by http://rivernetwork.org/resource-library/carbon-footprint-water (Accessed July 29, 2009)
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 8 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Energy intensity varies across the spectrum of activities in municipal water service provision. In
general, wastewater treatment, because it involves many steps such as collection and discharge,
is more energy-intensive than water supply. Level of energy intensity depends on the distance
water is transported and the elevation scaled (Table 2).

TABLE 2. RANGE OF ENERGY INTENSITIES FOR WATER USE CYCLE SEGMENTS4 
Range of Energy Intensity 
Water Use Cycle Segments  (kilowatt hour/million gallons) 
Low  High
Water Supply and Conveyance  0  14,000
Water Treatment  100  16,000
Water Distribution  250  1,200
Wastewater Collection and Treatment  700  4,600
Wastewater Discharge  0  400
Total:  1,050  36,200
Source: Reproduced from Table 2.1, in The Carbon Foot Print of Water by Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspeil and Wendy Wilson of River
Network, Inc., Portland, Oregon. May 2009. 

The energy intensity of water is a function of the treatment required and the distance that the
water must be conveyed. In general, most municipal water supply originates either as surface or
ground water.

Energy use associated with wastewater treatment stems from the requirements to pump, process
and disperse processed effluent. The higher the levels of treatment are, the more energy is used.
In general, wastewater treatment enjoys significant economies of scale. Energy intensity per MG
of water processed goes down as systems increase in size (Table 3).

TABLE 3. ENERGY INTENSITY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY SIZE AND LEVEL OF TREATMENT5
Unit Electricity Consumption (kilowatthours per million gallons or kWh/MG)
Treatment Plant 
Advanced
Size (million  Advanced 
Trickling  Activated  Wastewater 
gallons/day or  Wastewater 
Filter  Sludge  Treatment with 
MGD)  Treatment 
Nitrification 
1 MGD  1,811 2,236 2,596  2,951
5 MGD  978 1,369 1,573  1,926
10 MGD  852 1,203 1,408  1,791
20 MGD  750 1,114 1,303  1,676
50 MGD  687 1,051 1,216  1,588
100 MGD  673 1,028 1,188  1,558
Source: Reproduced from Table 2.3, in The Carbon Foot Print of Water by Bevan Griffiths-Sattenspeil and Wendy Wilson of River
Network, Inc., Portland, Oregon. May 2009. 

4
Griffiths-Sattenspiel, Bevan and Wilson, Wendy. 2009. The Carbon Footprint of Water
by http://rivernetwork.org/resource-library/carbon-footprint-water (Accessed July 29, 2009)
5 Griffiths-Sattenspiel, Bevan and Wilson, Wendy. 2009. The Carbon Footprint of Water
by http://rivernetwork.org/resource-library/carbon-footprint-water (Accessed July 29, 2009)
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 9 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

SECTION II: Description of Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems in Appalachia

Over the last 40 years, the Appalachian Regional Commission has invested millions of dollars in
providing healthy drinking water and safe wastewater treatment to residents and businesses in
the region. Today, according to Baldwin (2007), “…water and wastewater treatment investments
represent more than half of the ARC’s non-highway funding investments.”6 These funds have
not eliminated the region's problem of healthy and abundant water supply, however––even after
40 years, a serious deficit remains in the region’s water infrastructure. In a public presentation of
a report to the ARC produced by the Environmental Finance Center at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Appalachia: An
Analysis of Capital Funding and Funding Gaps, lead author Jeff Hughes stated that the price tag
for water and wastewater treatment needs in Appalachia has been conservatively estimated to be
$35–$40 billion.7 Further, according to Hughes, water services currently involve fragmented
small systems scattered throughout the region. Adding to or adjusting water services will require
a great deal more money and can only work effectively through community partnerships. In
addition, the needs for water supply and waste removal are being juxtaposed with environmental
standards that limit waterway pollution. Almost all major surface waterways in the Northeastern
U.S. have headwaters in or pass through the Appalachian region. Thus, the water quality of a
vast area of the U.S. is affected by water supply in the ARC region.

Adding to the need for both new water services and systems refurbishment to meet cost and
environmental requirements is a third challenge: rising energy costs. For most communities,
water and wastewater treatment services are the two most energy-intensive and costly services
provided. Most municipalities spend one-third of their budget to provide water-related services.
Further, energy prices are expected to remain volatile over time and will likely increase due to
supply constraints and restrictions on utilization stemming from greenhouse gas emissions. The
good news is the need to achieve cost effective service provision while meeting environmental
regulatory standards can be realized by making investments in energy efficiency technology
thereby reducing three challenges at once.

The triple goals of cost reduction, environmental integrity and reduction in energy consumption
are mutually reinforcing. Reducing energy costs require investments that increase efficiency and
result in greater environmental integrity. To meet these goals, decision makers should be
educated about the triple problems of economic and energy efficiency and environmental
integrity and they should be offered a means to achieve them. Here, we provide background
information and course content recommendations for developing a leadership-training program
around energy efficiency in water and wastewater treatment.

6 Baldwin, Fred. 2007. Summary of Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) conference, “Back to Basics:
Investing in and Improving Appalachia’s Infrastructure,” held October 24–25,2007 in Charleston, West Virginia.
http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=3177. Accessed June 28, 2009.
7 Baldwin, Fred. 2007. Summary of Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) conference, “Back to Basics:
Investing in and Improving Appalachia’s Infrastructure,” held October 24–25, in Charleston, West Virginia.
http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=3177.
ARC CO‐16142‐08 
Basic Energy Training & Energy Management Planning for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants 
A Case Study in Pennsylvania                  Page 10 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appalachia presents unusual challenges

Significant progress has been made in the availability of water and wastewater treatment services
in Appalachian communities. The Commission has been instrumental in bringing services to the
region and yet there are still pockets of seriously deficient conditions.

According to the 2000 Census, while the percentage of households with incomplete plumbing is
close to the national average (1%), in Appalachian counties such as Martin and Owsley in
Kentucky and Hancock in Tennessee, 5–10% of households still do not have complete plumbing.
Any intervention focused on water must take into account the existing water service system
conditions. Thus in this section, we set the stage for our discussion of educational opportunities
for leaders by first reviewing the unique circumstances that characterize Appalachian water
system structure. We then describe opportunities to improve the efficiency, environmental
quality and energy consumption of these two critical public services.

Water and wastewater treatment services are examined in this project simultaneously. An initial
observation indicates that water and wastewater treatment conditions vary considerably in terms
of system type and scale, water supply source, and system configuration. Most information
supporting this section of the report is drawn from the 2005 report to the Commission by the
Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Drinking Water

Most Appalachian communities receive their drinking water from either community water
systems8 or from wells. Most such systems draw on groundwater sources and provide water to
households and yet there are many places in the region where water is drawn from individual
wells (e.g., in Western North Carolina, only 25% of households receive water from community
systems).9

Water Treatment Systems

Water treatment systems vary based “on the type and the quality of source water, the age of the
facility, and the size of the facility.”10 Surface water systems require a variety of treatments
“including physical and chemical processes, including sedimentation, filtration, and
disinfection.” Twenty years ago, the common means of water purification was chlorination;
today, more stringent regulations require water supply systems to use additional treatment
regimes such as ozonification.

8 A “community water system” is a “public water system” (that is, a system providing water to the public for human
consumption) that “serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents of the area or that regularly
serves at least 25 year-round residents.” Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300f(16) (2004).
9 Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table H47.
10 U.S. Geological Survey, Water Use Data 2000, county-level data, available at
water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html.