Utility best management practice, as embodied in asset management terms, is delivering to customers defined levels of service at an acceptable risk at the least life-cycle cost of asset ownership. The challenge for utility mangers is defining 'what is the lowest cost of asset ownership' when considering the balance of operational, maintenance, refurbishment, and replacement costs all within an acceptable risk framework. This paper addresses development of a decision support tool to assist utility managers in optimizing decisions related to asset refurbishment and replacement (R&R). Key R&R decisions for utility managers include, "When do I intervene? What is the intervention? Should I intervene? How much should I include in my budget near term and long term? and How do I present the information to sustain R&R funding against the competing interests for my utility's limited capital dollars" This decision support tool identifies the optimized timing for a specific R&R intervention by balancing the cost from increasing risk of failure as an asset ages against the benefit of delaying R&R capital expenditures. The output of the tool is an optimized and justified timing strategy for asset rehabilitation, expressed in benefit/cost ratio terms, and a long-term forecast of future R&R investments as necessary to support sustaining a utilities infrastructure. This tool has been used by several utilities to support their R&R programs for wastewater collection pipe networks, pumping stations, flow control structures, and wastewater treatment plants. KEYWORDSAsset management, life cycle cost, risk management, refurbishment and rehabilitation, benefit cost.

This paper describes an intensive public involvement effort to secure the neighborhood support for the replacement of a sewer interceptor through an active and concerned local community. Previous replacement efforts had failed because of public opposition and denial of permits. To build trust and credibility with the local community residents and avoid a repetition of community mobilization against a project, the team engaged the local community in evaluating and selecting a preferred replacement pipeline alternative. The project team helped the community develop a set of community values that were used to evaluate various technical approaches to the pipeline's replacement, and then empowered community members to assist with the alternatives evaluation and project selection. The project team's citizen participation effort included a series of outreach efforts, public meetings, and citizen workshops, all compressed into a 90-day period to take advantage of a roadway realignment project previously scheduled. As a result of the intense public involvement effort and the strong citizen support, the utility was willing to pursue and implement the selected alternative in spite of its potential higher construction costs, higher risks, and difficulties finding contractors willing to perform the construction work.

As part of the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Program for the Capital Regional District (CRD), Brown and Caldwell and Stantec Consulting, Ltd. were tasked with developing and analyzing alternatives for locating multiple new wastewater treatment plants and conveyance systems and for preparing a biosolids management plan and recommending final collection, treatment and biosolids processing systems. To meet this end, three regional treatment plant alternatives and eleven biosolids alternatives were evaluated using a triple bottom line (TBL) analysis that included consideration of economic, environmental, and social costs for each alternative. To compare alternatives on an equal basis, the impacts used to evaluate each alternative were monetized based on either directly available economic information (e.g. capital costs, cost of fuel, etc.) or assumed community and environmental impacts (e.g. the cost of a traffic delay, a perceived loss in property value, pollutant discharge, etc.). The final results of the TBL evaluation incorporated a detailed accounting of the carbon footprint along with an implementation risk analysis and formed the basis for the regional wastewater treatment and biosolids management recommendations. The fully monetized TBL led to the identification of critical impacts and benefits for alternatives and provided a justifiable basis for sound decisions.

No abstract

Following five years of constant utility rates, the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility found the challenge of sustaining service levels and efficiency improvements necessary to continue to avoid rate increases increasingly difficult. To add new energy and ideas, the utility made the decision to involve employees in the strategic planning process and the efficiency program. The utility lead program, named the Excellence Adventure, achieved early, impressive gains through formation and recommendations of employee re-engineering teams, under the guidance of a cross divisional, organization and labor group Competitiveness Steering Team. After operating the Excellence Adventure for approximately three years, the utility hired a consulting team to accelerate the program to achieve the financial and cultural change goals.The Brown and Caldwell consultant team conducted evaluations of the utility and its competitiveness program as the basis for developing a 2002 Action Plan. The focus of the plan was both short-term, to meet cost savings goals, as well as long-term, to evolve the cultural changes necessary to ensure the savings were sustainable. The Action Plan focused on evolving the utility's efficiency initiative from a discrete program to its complete integration into the utility. This paper describes the development of the 2002 Action Plan and its first six months of implementation. The paper also describes the successes, challenges, and the lessons learned in integrating the continuous improvement culture into the organization while retaining the benefits accrued in the initial years of the Excellence Adventure program.