Water Flow Meter Replacement San Juan, Puerto Rico

Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority May 3rd, 2006

Report Submitted To: Professor Ann Garvin Professor Creighton Peet David Marsh Thomas Ryan Daniel Wesolowski Submitted By: _______________________ _______________________ _______________________

In Cooperation With: Andres García, PRASA, Assistant to the President Miguel Luciano, PRASA, Director of Operations: Customer Service Glorimar Ortiz, PRASA, Assistant Director of Customer Service
This project report is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority or Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Abstract
The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority (PRASA) is losing money because of failing water meters and under-billing. The goal of our project was to help PRASA by recommending an efficient replacement plan. To do this we performed a customer survey to determine their satisfaction with the authority. We also interviewed the directors of Customer Service to gain knowledge of the replacement effort and its problems. Replacement plans from around the world were compared to Puerto Rico’s to determine where Puerto Rico ranks. Finally, we performed a cost benefit analysis on metering systems using new reading technology. We made recommendations on new meter technology, as well as ways to improve the efficiency of the meter replacement plan, enabling the replacement of 200,000 meters a year.

i

Authorship
Initially, Tom Ryan drafted Chapter 1, the Appendices and the Abstract, David Marsh drafted Chapters 2, 4 and 5 and Dan Wesolowski drafted Chapter 3 and the executive summary. However, during the course of the project, all sections underwent revision by all group members. Additionally, all group members contributed equally achieving all parts of the methodology. Therefore, the authorship of this project is equally distributed among all three members.

ii

Primarily. We would like to thank Luis for driving us to and from work as well as all over the island. our office neighbors. answered our questions.Acknowledgments We would like to sincerely thank those who contributed to this project. we would like to thank our advisors Creighton Peet and Ann Garvin for their help and guidance during the project. Finally. The PRASA Customer Service directors helped us a great deal by taking the time to meet with us and answering our questions. Nidla and Felix. Miguel Luciano and Glorimar Ortiz for their cooperation and assistance. we would like to thank all of PRASA for giving us the opportunity to do this project. iii . helped us when we needed it and made us feel welcome at PRASA. Additionally. we would like to thank Andres Garcia.

.......................................1.................................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis ...2................................................................................................1........................................................................1 Flow Meters .....................1.............................................................................. iv Table of Figures............................................................................................................................................................ 34 4...................................3...................3 Water Meter Management .............. 9 2.....................................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology.......................................2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations .......1 General Replacement Considerations ..................................................... 7 2.......................................... 16 2.. 24 3.................................................. 5 2..........................................................2.................................................................................. 24 3........................2 Director Interviews ...................3..............................2 Other Meter Replacements ..2............................................................................2 Iterative Drafting of Plan .................................... i Authorship ..........3.............. ii Acknowledgments ............ iii Table of Contents ....... 32 4...................................3.......1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans............................................... 16 2...........................................2.......................................................................1.................. 24 3.3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan.................1 Customer Survey.......... 27 4........2 Evaluation of Current Information System ......................................................................................2 Island Considerations.............................................2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan ................................................................3 Puerto Rico’s Water System .........................................................3.......................1......................................................................................................... 21 3......................................... vii Executive Summary ........................... 25 Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis ............................1................... 27 4..............................1 Flow Meter Importance........................................................... 17 2................2........................................................4 2......................................... vi Table of Tables ............ 4 2.......................................Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................1 Interview with Administrators ................. viii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................ 20 3.............................................................1................... 23 3........1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement......... 20 3.....2 Meter Replacement Considerations .................................. 15 2........................................................... 17 Chapter 3: Methodology............................................... 37 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ..................3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations ........................ 23 3.........2 Evaluation of Information System ....... 7 2.................................................................. 22 3.................................................. 27 4....3 Plan Comparisons ...........1......................................................... 31 4............................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan ...........1... 37 4................................................................................................................................................3 PRASA...........................................................................1 Chapter 2: Background...... 20 3.........................................................................................................................1 Interview with System Administrators ....................................................................................1 Customer Survey.........................................1.................................................1 Water Resources ............................................ 4 2..... 39 iv ....................................

..................................................... 39 5............... 45 Appendices........5 Informing Customers of Work to be Done ......................................................................................................5....................................................2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology................................ 42 5........................................................................... 41 5....... 51 Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas............................................................................................1...................................2 Information System Recommendations..........................................3 Meter Replacement Timeline................ 54 Appendix D: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Del Caribe ................................... 58 Appendix F: Director Survey Results – East Region......... 49 Appendix B: Customer Service Questionnaire .......................4 Meter Testing .......................1.. 69 Appendix J: Sponsor Description........................................................................... 56 Appendix E: Director Survey Results – Metro Region . 66 Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Data ...... 41 5.......................................................... 39 5......................................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix G: Director Survey Results – South Region............................................................................................................. 63 Appendix H: Director Survey Results – West Region................................................... 49 Appendix A: Customer Questionnaire ............................................... 99 v ................ 43 5.........................................................................................................................1...........................1 Metering Technology.......1............................1 Meter Replacement Strategies ..1................................................. 44 References .................................................................................................

...Necessity of Automatic Reading – South Region.......................................................................... 60 Figure 13 .Satisfaction with Service in Ponce ................. 67 Figure 22 ..........Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – East Region .......................West Region................South Region.....................West Region.......Opinions on Current Reading Technology – East Region........................Opinions on Current Meter Technology ...... 62 Figure 14 ......... 62 Figure 15 .................... 30 Figure 4 ..........Overall Satisfaction of Customers with PRASA ........ 55 Figure 6 ....... 67 Figure 20 ... 57 Figure 8 – Opinions of the Price of Water ......... 55 Figure 7 .. 60 Figure 12 ................................. 65 Figure 18 ....... Price Rating .......Net Incremental Cash Flow...Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – Metro Region ... 67 Figure 21 .. 59 Figure 11 – Opinions on Current Meter Technology – East Region........................ 64 Figure 16 .......................... 68 Figure 23 ............................................................Overall Satisfaction vs...West Region .Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement .........................................Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow.......Cumulative Cash Flow............................................................... 64 Figure 17 ..................................................... 59 Figure 10 ........................................Number of People Required for Meter Replacement – South Region ................................................... 96 Figure 24 .....Plasa Las Americas .....Opinions on Current Reading Technology .................. 57 Figure 9 ..........Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement – East Region ..................Technicians Present for Meter Replacement – Metro Region ......................... 30 Figure 5 ........... 98 vi .......................... 27 Figure 2 ...............Ponce ...................................Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction ....................................West Region..............Plaza Las Americas .........................South Region...........Table of Figures Figure 1 – Overall Satisfaction with PRASA ...........Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .. 29 Figure 3 ...............Number of People Present at Meter Replacement ..................................................Overall Satisfaction vs...... 65 Figure 19 ............Satisfaction with the Current Meters ............................ Reliability Rating .................................................Opinions on Reliability of PRASA Service .................... 97 Figure 25 .....

...Net Cash Flow ....Internal Rate of Return..............................................Current and Future ............................................ 81 Table 14 ..... 61 Table 6 ..................Possible Systems......Customer Survey Results .............. 63 Table 7 ..............Incremental Cash Flow ........ C........ 94 vii ........Current System....................................................................................................Table of Tables Table 1 ............Ponce...........................Net Cash Flow .........................................................................................................................................................Director Survey Results – West Region.................................... 69 Table 9 .............................. F.Water Rates ............................ P...................................................................Return on Investment ........ 70 Table 10 ................Current System.Return on Investment ......... 80 Table 13 ..Results from Director Interview .............Badger/Badger ...ITRON/AMCO.........................................................................South Region........ 54 Table 3 ..............Consumption Figures ..................................................... 78 Table 12 .................................... and Totals ................Comparison of AMR Systems.....................................................Cumulative Cash Flow ..............Incremental Cash Flow Summary ...Consumption Figures – A.............................................................. 85 Table 17 ............ 88 Table 18 ............................. 83 Table 16 .......Proposed System....... 58 Table 5 ................ 82 Table 15 .......................................................... R.Plaza Las Americas .. 56 Table 4 ....................... 66 Table 8 ..............................Return on Investment ......... B...................................................................................Metro Region.................... 89 Table 19 ......... 91 Table 21 ................................Net Present Value.... 34 Table 2 .........................Results from Director Interview .........Results from Director Survey .Badger/AMCO .Return on Investment ......Customer Survey Results ........................Payback Period .................... 74 Table 11 ......................Datamatic..................................... 92 Table 22 . G .................I.......................................Metro Region...................... 90 Table 20 ....................................

Their current replacement efforts are effective. and they hope to replace 200. The project was divided into two main sections. PRASA viii . implementing new meter technology and addressing some customer concerns.000 meters. These companies allowed miles of pipe to fall into disrepair causing customers to be without water for extended periods of time. or have recently finished a replacement similar to PRASA’s such as Toronto.Executive Summary Failing water meters have been a problem for PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) since they took charge of the Puerto Rican water system in 2004. but could be improved. Puerto Rico contracted the management of the water system to a succession of two different private companies. To satisfy the meter management section. along with a desire to improve efficiency are what prompted PRASA to request assistance. During the preceding ten years. Meter failures cause incorrect customer billing. These failing meters and infrastructure problems. PRASA replaced 130. Many cities across the United States and the world are currently involved in. undetected leaks. Seattle. Although no one plan will work for every situation due to variations in such things as geographic population distribution and terrain.000 in 2006. Studying similar projects completed in other cities is helpful in effective planning. meter management evaluation and the information system evaluation. and Atlantic City. In 2005. specifically. for improving PRASA’s current replacement efforts. This project provided suggestions that satisfied the water meter management needs of Puerto Rico. and other system errors that result in increased maintenance expenses. we performed comparisons on meter replacement efforts in Puerto Rico and in the United States. the methods used in these cities can offer helpful insights and may be adapted for use in Puerto Rico.

customers were surveyed concerning their opinions of their services and information was gathered from Customer Service directors about the state of their region and any concerns they had about the current replacement effort. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology. This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow. Currently. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows.6 Million.3 million meter replacements in 7 years. In light of this. Finally. The results of the cost-benefit analysis prompted the recommendation that PRASA keep their current meters and install the ITRON AMR technology at an initial investment of $187. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs. PRASA’s goal of replacing 200. As PRASA continues to replace meters. We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix . we recommend that PRASA finalize their decision on AMR and begin installing the transmitters with every new meter in order to reduce the cost of retrofitting currently installed meters. We evaluated PRASA’s current information system by inspecting it and speaking with its administrators to gain an understanding of how it works and if the current technology was adequate.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter.

Testing allows meter life to be calculated instead of estimated. Once enough data are gathered. and it was unnecessary for us to proceed with the investigation. However. the database can be queried to identify meters due for replacement. The opinions of the customers are very important to PRASA. x . This would have involved an inspection and administrator interviews to gain an understanding of the process and possible improvements. Once a replacement interval is established. regions could accurately predict whether the current replacement timeline needs adjustment. the PRASA data center had already collected bids for a new system and is currently in the process of analyzing them. Through random sampling or other such methods. They plan to finish the upgrade process in 3 years. and 64% indicated their preferred method of notification was postal mail. These recommendations will help PRASA to improve their replacement effort and meter management while also reducing the Authority’s costs.testing program. While not every meter can be tested. The affected customer can then be notified of an impending meter change and interruption of service via an insert in the monthly bill. meaning that meters can be replaced more economically. each region would select enough meters to represent the health of the system. An evaluation of PRASA’s current information system was originally planned. We administered a customer survey and found that 61% of people said they were not informed in a timely manner of work that would leave them without water. Any problems we would report are already known and any recommendations we could give would not be as informed as the recommendations they will make. representative samples could be tested every few years. It was our opinion that they had the situation under control.

The Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) maintains the over 1. a large portion of those meters are reaching or have reached the end of their useful life. in turn. This has lead to billing customers for less water than they have actually used.3 million water meters under its jurisdiction. Many water departments have implemented replacement plans to address the issues they have encountered with failing meters. A water system. Seattle.Chapter 1: Introduction Fresh. combined with an inefficient and inaccurate meter reading system. the current technology is obsolete. Currently. has detailed a plan that encompasses every aspect of their water system in order to address maintenance and replacement concerns. There are many processes and expenses that go into the treatment and transportation of potable water. run appropriately. will provide enough revenue to the water department so that all operating and improvement expenses can be fully covered. which. If an authority is unable to properly bill customers for the water they use. diminishes the authority’s ability to finance operations and improvements. 1 . potable water provided directly to our homes and work places is an expensive commodity. Washington. all of which require a steady flow of income to finance. This. it will be unable to adequately finance continuing service and improvements to infrastructure. The incorrect billing of water usage has produced a reduced amount of revenue. Atlantic City has embarked on a ten year replacement effort in order to accommodate anticipated residential and commercial growth in their city. As the meters age. they begin to underestimate water usage. These plans have increased the constant revenue each department receives and financed various improvements to both their infrastructure and organization. Despite several upgrades. contribute to PRASA’s difficulties in maintaining a sufficient revenue level.

000 water meters. This system involves a pair of technicians who travel from meter-to-meter reading the actual numbers off of the meter-register and entering them into a handheld computer. Of these issues. the archaic meter-reading system is the most problematic for the authority. but no conclusions have been made. In late 2005. and are able to read meters and bill customers with much improved accuracy and spend fewer man hours reading meters. often lead to incorrect readings and therefore incorrect billing. the company released a Request for Proposals from AMR companies in the hopes of initiating a move to a new reading system. PRASA also realizes the importance of having correctly functioning meters. Human errors. The current replacement effort is moving forward. and meter-reading technology. Since December 2005. the authority replaced over 130. the plan in use may not be the most effective. PRASA understands the importance of AMR technology to the future of the organization. and is currently involved in small pilot programs on several parts of the island. PRASA has received several estimates from related companies. In 2005. the company will need to determine whether the benefits of the system outweigh the initial costs. a large number of them have been buried. information system. The pilot programs have been running for several months.PRASA’s revenue generation abilities are hindered by several factors including their replacement plan. however. This poses significant problems when the meter is due for reading or replacement. but is wary of proceeding with a full change-over due in part to the costs associated with such an endeavor. PRASA recognizes that AMR is the next step. relocated. A reading system of this type is not only inefficient. or overtaken by plant growth. along with the occasional inability to actually locate the meter. Water authorities around the world are switching to newer. In order to continue with the modifications to the system. Of the meters installed before 2005. For the success of the 2 . but also inaccurate. Currently. more efficient Automated-Meter-Reading Technologies (AMR).

These recommendations will enable the company to conserve money that would normally be spent on inefficient meter reading and replacement procedures. along with any future replacement. as well as increase revenue and ensure customer satisfaction. This will increase the annual revenue allowing the company to focus more resources on serving the customer. PRASA should locate all missing or buried meters.current venture. This project explored each of these issues and produced a set of recommendations which will aid PRASA in the minimization of costs and failing water meters. 3 .

It allows the water utility to properly measure how much water a specific house or business has used and charge them appropriately. Block rate billing. For some utilities. General replacement strategies as well as specific examples of other replacement plans will be discussed to demonstrate what other water authorities are doing to keep their water meters functioning. This chapter will present this information as it relates to Puerto Rico.1 Flow Meters While it is the function of a flow meter to only record the volume of water that passes through it. Understanding how this fits in with their current water system and the water concerns of an island will be necessary to make proper recommendations for Puerto Rico. the meter is needed for much more than that.Chapter 2: Background Creating a water meter replacement plan is not a task to be taken lightly. Finally.1 Flow Meter Importance Correctly billing the customer is the primary use for a flow meter (Allender. Understanding the importance of a flow meter. 2. This section will discuss why a flow meter is an important piece of a water distribution system and mention some technological and managerial flow meter considerations. Many aspects must be considered in order to create a successful plan. A flow meter provides reliable water usage measurement. This enables the water authority to accurately bill customers so that the funds necessary to maintain the system are collected. 2. 1996. Replacement strategies are also an important part of a meter replacement plan. Puerto Rico is in a unique situation concerning the water authority. 4 . Water meters are a large part of a water meter replacement plan.1. as well as the technological issues that must be dealt with is necessary in choosing the right water meter. Detection). like PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) these bills are their only source of income.

then discrepancies between how much water went out and how much water was paid for can indicate leaks or problems in the delivery system. functioning flow meters are necessary. Optimum). This is done by a reader looking at the meter itself and recording the number it displays. Bhardwaj. In order for this kind of billing to be possible. p. When these surroundings are in a sewer below busy roads. 2004. revenue is lost. In some areas. the authorities can monitor water consumption and better judge current and future water needs. Bhardwaj. If the water meter is accurate. the result can be a cave in. Armed with this knowledge.2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations Choosing how to read the meters is almost as important as choosing the meter itself. If a town pays for a certain amount of water from another town and then does not make all of that money back. Horsman & Hanson. 2. 2002. Moreover. p. This is an especially important issue for towns that purchase their water from neighboring towns. If the amount of water being sent out is equal to the amount of water being billed for.60).1).3). 2004. The display 5 . then flow meters can indicate something more (Satterfield.000 a year in water bills. inaccurate flow meters have resulted in a loss of up to $200. it is possible for a leak in a pipe to erode the surroundings of the pipe. maintenance and even whether the meter is read or estimated.which charges for the specific amount of water used. The economic effects of incorrect billing can be significant (Allender. 1996. as opposed to flat fee billing has been said to encourage water conservation. The first kind of reading is manual reading (Satterfield.1. causing problems if the water department does not generate enough money to sustain the facilities needed to keep water flowing to its customers. p. Water meters may also be used to find leaks in a system (Shea. The meter reading technique can affect accuracy. They can report the water usage for a community.

this method shares many disadvantages with manual reading. or a yard surrounded by a locked fence. The transmitter itself is attached to the body of the meter by a wire. 2004. If there are 1. 2004.3). meaning that readers and transmitters cannot be freely intermixed. then 1. This still involves going to the location of the meter but now the readings are interpreted by a computer instead of a person.3). Using radio transmitters. Unfortunately. radio transmitter technology is very proprietary. A popular solution today is remotely read meters (Satterfield. A solution to a few of these issues is an electric wand (Satterfield. Personal Communication. all the meters on a street can be read by traveling up and down the street with sensing technology.3 million meters in an area. p. This removes the uncertainty of the reading and the measurement is recorded in a computerized system. markings on a spinning disk or just a readout on a small screen. Using radio frequencies or similar technology. but this is improving (Jim Deming. Bhardwaj. The reader is an issue as well (Jim Deming. p. personal communication. the other one does not have to be replaced. the radio transmitter is usually much more expensive than the meter. This method does not require contact with the homeowner and any dangers of physically reading the device are avoided (Jim Deming. Nevertheless.can read like an odometer. This means that if either the meter or the transmitter fails. If the people reading the meter does not understand what they are reading or the reading is ambiguous. The physical location of the meter can also be an issue. 2/9/2006). then meter reading is difficult. Right now.3 million separate readings must occur every billing period and is a very time consuming process. as there are in Puerto Rico. If the meter is located in the basement of an uncooperative customer. Each meter still needs to be read by hand and the wand must physically touch the meter’s surface. the water company can read meters much faster than the other two methods allow. 2/9/2006). personal 6 . Bhardwaj. then an incorrect number will be recorded and the billing will be wrong.

management issues such as the economic life of a meter must be understood for any plan to be successful. PRASA uses manual reading on their 1. encompassing much more land and containing thousands more miles of pipes than most systems. All aspects of the transmitter are reliant on battery life. They feel that a radio broadcaster in their house could put their health at risk. 2/9/2006). Puerto Rico’s water system is very complex compared to other water systems. This means that customer availability or customer concerns about the technology used do not factor in as greatly and they are free to pursue the technology that will work the best for them.1 General Replacement Considerations There is no meter replacement plan that will work for every situation. radio broadcasting requires a license. the range decreases until it ceases to broadcast. specifically using radio transmitters. 2. Also. 2. Finally. review past meter replacement efforts and discuss a few management issues. Currently. There is.2. There are many issues that need to be addressed before meters are bought and replacements are done. an effort to change over to automatic meter reading. This section will discuss general meter replacement concerns. Reviewing solutions from other locations is a good way to understand the ideas behind a good replacement plan. which is another added cost to consider. a few guidelines have been compiled that experts in the 7 . This effort is being made easier by the fact that all of the meters are on public property. Nevertheless. however. especially the range. What worked well for one city could fail for another. people have expressed concerns about potential risks. or reveal personal information. In the past. As the battery wears down.communication.3 million meters.2 Meter Replacement Considerations Replacing water meters is not an easy task.

The final consideration to make is whether to do the replacement with local resources or hire an external company (Deming. Are the main points of a water replacement plan. 2/9/2006). The annual budget can be used to tabulate how many meters the city can afford to replace in a year. so can the average total cost for replacement. 2/9/2006). Extending the contract to step out meter replacements would likely drive the overall cost higher by forcing the town to make payments over a longer period of time. Jim Deming is the Head of the Town of Acton Massachusetts Water Department. a section of town should be chosen at random and all of the meters in that section should be replaced. personal communication. personal communication. For him. When this has been completed. 2/9/2006). This is an advantage because their meters are stepped out in terms of 8 . Choosing the technology to use is the most important part of planning a water meter replacement (Jim Deming. Hiring an external company could produce faster results but at a higher price. This is something unique to every town or city. personal communication. Doing the replacement with town resources can be cheaper but may take as much as 5 to 10 years longer depending on the size of the town and resources available (Deming. the average cost for a meter can be determined. and in turn. Another problem with an external company is that they might complete the work much faster than if the town or city did it themselves. 2/9/2006). regardless of the size of the system or replacement effort.field and research on this project suggest. This is an issue because all of the meters will be roughly the same age (1-2 years to each other) which means that they will all fail roughly at the same time. This should continue until all meters in all sections have been replaced. choosing which meters to replace is a simple matter. The water department must look at all of the available options before coming to a decision. Once this decision has been made. a small town in northern Massachusetts (Personal Communication. The broken meters should be replaced first until there are no more.

This is the strategy used by a small town. would not work with so many water meters. Additionally. The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. An analysis of their remaining life should be done.2. All replacement plans and strategies should be looked at to determine whether a specific strategy could be used or adapted to work for Puerto Rico. personal communication. 1993. A careful and systematic approach should be used to ensure all meters are taken care of and resources are allocated efficiently. They decided to replace every meter in the city over a span of 5 years with a meter that was factory sealed and prepared for installation. Testing the meters a while after replacement. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. for example. Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. Anatomy). Fewer meters will fail at the same time. The meters that served the 40.2 Other Meter Replacements Looking at what other locations have done and are doing about their water meter problems will help to shape the efforts of cities and towns trying to solve their own problems.000 people living there were becoming 10 to 20 years older than they should have been and beginning to show signs of wear and tear. 2. 2/9/2006). This. Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced. 9 . coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. but could be adapted to work. however.age. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin.

1996. The meters needed to be technologically sound and equipped with radio frequency equipment but not so expensive that one meter would be too costly to replace if it were vandalized or another one needed to be added. At the same time. 1996. the project was 90% complete within 10 months. causing customer complaints. Pontiac. Benefits). Meter replacements were rare. There was also a problem with fenced in meters.05 billion to 3. they were purchasing water from another city. In the end. is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading.000 different clients. 1996. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson. average billable water readings jumped from 3. 1996. they decided to use radio frequency meters. Research). Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. Like Atlantic City. so a boost in available personnel. and the 10 . 1996.The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees. Aging Meters). 1993. Michigan. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. Meter Replacement). Anatomy).65 billion gallons. a significant amount of water and revenue. Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand. only for new houses or completely broken meters. The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. To alleviate this problem. The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson. The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years. was in a similar situation (Jackson. similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City. Research). and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals. Their aging meters served about 20.

The meters would have to be durable enough to withstand any weather situation in Puerto Rico. With so many meters on the island. customer reading. 2002. A study of the high volume meters in the Toronto area revealed that only 35% of these meters were operating within acceptable parameters (City of Toronto. This was determined to be an inefficient use of the employee’s time. The financial and technological concerns this town had about their meters are the same that Puerto Rico has. Meter Testing Results). Toronto has three main account types: high volume accounts. Background). many of the meters they used were over 30 years old and beginning to break down. These three accounts provide a total of $408. with 27% of them being over 30 years old and beginning to misread water flow. Canada and the surrounding area had a number of water meter problems in 2002 (City of Toronto. In order to address these and other issues. even relying on manual labor. as they are exposed to more weather than meters located indoors. 2002.safety of the people reading the meters was ensured. The electrically based system reduced the need for repairs on the mechanical parts. A significant percentage of accounts are read through manual reading.000 to the water department. several agencies within Toronto collaborated to solve these problems. 11 . the purchase of $200 meters would pose a financial burden on the authority. and low volume non metered accounts (City of Toronto. Background). Toronto. Accounts are billed through a combination of manual reading. Eighteen percent of their accounts did not have meters and were paying a flat rate for water. remote reading and no reading.600. Finally. The low volume meters had similar problems. Their meter reading methods were antiquated. The rest of the meters were causing an estimated $15 million in losses for the company each year. low volume metered accounts. 2002.

Conclusion). Personal Communication.000 meters replaced in a year. 3/1/2006). The low flow meters are to be replaced in groups of 20. 2002. This will result in a more satisfied customer base. Currently. the larger diameter a meter has. 3/4" and 1" are all replaced every 10 years. These fixes are expected to bring average savings of $255 million over the next 15 years (City of Toronto. Meters that are 5/8".In the end. it was determined that there were several things Toronto could do to improve its water meter infrastructure (City of Toronto. some readings are estimated. including non metered accounts. Florida follow a strict schedule of testing and replacement (Robert Lauria. the surrounding areas are to have anywhere from 25. The first was to upgrade all accounts. If a meter begins to show usage patterns of a meter the next size up.500 nonmetered accounts be upgraded to metered accounts over the next four years. There are too many meters for each one to be read every billing period. Beyond 1”. In the Toronto area. Purpose). This allowed employees to collect more data faster and streamline the billing process. It was also recommended that all 8. Tampa’s meter replacement began in 1992 as a test to see if meters were appropriately sized for the environments they were in (Robert Lauria.000 over the next four years. doing 5. Like Toronto. The proposal gives a tentative plan for an eight year replacement program. there is an issue with estimated billing in Puerto Rico. then its testing schedule is changed to that of the next size. Starting in year 2 and going to year 8. they continued to check for meters that 12 . 2002. Personal Communication. 3/1/2006). estimated meter readings will disappear due to the new meter technology.000 the first year and 10. Puerto Rico hopes to eliminate the need for estimated billing by installing better meter reading technology. to radio meters.000 the second. Replacements in Tampa. Additionally. Due to this. After many meters were replaced due to size reasons.000 to 63. the high volume meters are to be replaced over the course of two years. the more frequently it is tested.

3/23/2006). They determine all of the 5/8". Similarly. but they themselves keep track of everything that has been done and needs to be done (Cheryl Avila. Arbitrary choices. 1". They wound up doing 10. There were several problems they encountered when dealing with a private contractor. a modified schedule that either spreads out testing or takes a representative sample of meters would need to be considered. Personal Communication. hard to find meters) with easier replacements to make the replacement quota more reasonable.000 – 15. The specifics of the plan were chosen rather arbitrarily. 13 . the contractor was having trouble keeping enough people in the Tucson area to effectively do the work. Secondly. 1. access problems. Personal Communication. they saw a 14% increase in billed water. 3/23/2006). Arizona does things a little differently (Cheryl Avila. nor can it be due to the number of meters. for example. because they indicated that they would have needed another full time employee to deal with the amount of paperwork that is associated with the meter replacements. the amount of testing done in Tampa is not something done in Puerto Rico. Tucson. First and foremost was that the Tucson Water Department could not simply give the contractor a list of meters to replace and tell them to report back once it was completed.000 meters a year until they finished. are not something an island with so many water meters can consider. If PRASA were to implement meter testing. They use a private contractor to carry out the actual meter replacement. They try to balance difficult meter replacements (old pipes and valves. They started replacing larger meters first because those garnered the most revenue and moved down in size as they progressed.5" and 2" meters that are 20 years or older and mark them for replacement. In the end.needed to be replaced for other reasons. This plan exemplifies several items that are either not suitable for Puerto Rico or not currently used. The start of the meter replacement was the southern part of Tampa because it was the oldest.

In Seattle Washington. During this time. For their large meters. putting the lower priority ones at the end. Currently. was to keep testing and replacing meters until the decline in meter accuracy was noticeable from month to month (Henry Chen. First. Personal Communication. but other company expenses as well. The first option. 14 . short-term priority replacement. the Tucson Water Department had to do a great deal of communication and paperwork when dealing with the company they used. the resources needed to do this were beyond the resources of the office. Those that were deemed a problem were to be replaced on a priority basis. there is a backlog of 710 large meters to be replaced that have been identified as having a problem. was to keep testing meters that were not deemed a problem and replace them as necessary (Henry Chen. Secondly. It is likely that PRASA would experience a similar inundation of extra work to be done if they switched to a private company. However. are the wrong size or their accuracy cannot be assured. the costs involved in dealing with a private company are likely to be higher than if PRASA were to use their own technicians. 3/26/2006). The whole process was to take six years. inconsistencies in prices would confuse the customers. long-term priority replacement. three replacement plans were reviewed before a decision was made on which one to use (Henry Chen. The large meters are replaced when they become stuck or unreadable. It was estimated that it would take 20 years to finish the backlog of meters. Option two. test until failure. The cost of meter would represent not only parts and labor. The third plan. This is due to the fact that all companies have overhead to take care of. Their small meters are allowed to run to failure and are replaced when they are discovered by the billing system. Personal Communication. 3/26/2006). with the meters that would garner the most profit being the highest priority. a few issues would need to be dealt with before the switch could be made. was to take the methods from the second option but stretch the timeline out to longer than six years. Personal Communication.If PRASA were to switch to a private company. 3/26/2006).

turning more and more on electronic or wireless meter reading protocols to expedite the reading process.Testing until failure reduces the risk of replacing a meter with life left on it. they cannot be considered individual pieces. solving their problem as quickly as possible. Personal Communication. Long term priority replacement was their final choice. 3/26/2006). This is something that Puerto Rico may have to consider the needs of the customer and the water authority. However. An important thing to keep in mind is that each meter is part of a larger network. The second option is the most desirable method. so a compromise was made in order to meet the resource requirements and still solve the problem in an adequate amount of time. Personal Communication. it was not possible due to the money and resources necessary.2. If one meter is having a problem.3 Water Meter Management Knowledge of how to maintain so many meters is crucial to keeping the system working (Schlenger. Long term priority replacement provides most of the benefits of the short term priority replacement with no need for an increase in resources and a slightly longer time table. something that could happen with short term and long term priority replacement (Henry Chen. Encompassing All Aspects). 3/26/2006). 2000. However. 15 . 2. Seattle felt the likelihood that a meter so degraded that its decline is clearly visible in the billing system was too great to consider this option. that same problem might be happening somewhere else. Countless other states and counties are beginning to replace antiquated water meters in the same fashion. The process Seattle went through is a good example of weighing available resources against desired outcomes and making a compromise. Short term priority replacement solves the issue of price inequality but was deemed to require too much money and resources (Henry Chen.

2. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. In addition to this. the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. Commercial.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. old meters were costing up to $13. 2004. but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. Maryland. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. Despite being a small island.2 and 183. 2.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430.3 MGD respectively. they have a very complex water distribution system. 1996.393). 1996. Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. 16 . Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. being an island presents water concerns of its own. p. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good. p. their island concerns and the history of PRASA.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. Finally. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters.1). industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent.3. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. In the case of Anne Arundel County. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with.25 per meter per year. In general. Optimum).

2000. p. Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts. Most islands. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas. Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure. The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island. 2000.3. Currently. water meter import costs are not a concern because PRASA has their meters manufactured on the island for a cost of $22.2 Island Considerations Puerto Rico is different from other places that do meter replacements in the sense that Puerto Rico is an island with many more customers and meters to deal with than smaller towns (Pigram.75 per meter (Andres Garcia.3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island.3. Their replacement 17 . It is easier for a city in the United States to buy water from other towns and cities than it is for an island to import water. but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. Currently. Even for the cities that have a similar population. This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run. while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers. 2. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population. Despite this.Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. their people are concentrated in one area. 2/3/2006).3). dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram.3). personal communication. should and do monitor their water supply. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand. 2. p. Golf courses and other large tourist attractions are also an issue because of the large amounts of water they use for chores like laundry and keeping the grounds green. Puerto Rico included.

Vivendi. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. p. One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. health problems arose from the lack of fresh water and the physical labor involved in carrying back large quantities of water from a river or other source. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider. 2002. Aside from service problems. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work. government controlled land (Andres Garcia.11). Customers consistently complained of paying for water they did not use as well as interruptions in their water service for days or weeks at a time. 2/3/2006). 11). Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. 2004. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002. The first company. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. 2002. During these times of drought.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. 2005) By 2004. On top of this. personal communication. the EPA fined them $6. Ondeo (Blasor. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas. p. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. Ondeo and Vivendi. 18 . which rose to $695 million in 2001.1). (McPhaul.

It is also reflected in the EPA’s quote. they cited the fact that an extra $93 million was requested by Ondeo for the continuation of their services. According to the new president of PRASA the company was “a total mess” when they took over from Ondeo (McPhaul. all residential meters are replaced every ten years and their larger meters every five years. “Preventive maintenance at PRASA doesn’t exist at all. The meters must be managed and replaced correctly or else they will not be used to their full potential. When the government decided to cut their 10 year agreement short in 2004. 2003. 19 . They help with customer billing as well as system maintenance and monitoring. Relations between the government and Ondeo were not on stable ground towards the end.2 billion as of June. Regardless of this. In the case of Puerto Rico. At this point. Almost all areas that have water meters have a replacement plan to ensure that their meters are functioning correctly. 2005. The only other stipulation is that all meters replaced must be ready to accept Automatic Meter Reading technology. It is this as well as the increasing numbers of failing water meters that sparked PRASA into requesting assistance with these issues. any meter found to be ineffective is replaced immediately. p. the government stepped in and reclaimed control of PRASA. Currently. but it is not obvious as to whether this information is used. This is a big factor in the water meter problems Puerto Rico is currently having. Ondeo said they had been misinformed as to the status of the system and the $93 million was necessary to maintain functionality.achieving a deficit of $1.” PRASA now has a replacement plan.1). Flow meters are essential to any water distribution system. their plan is not as robust as it should be. information is gathered on meters that may fail in the future. Finally.

1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base.000. We chose a survey because it enabled us to ask more questions to a larger audience within a shorter time frame than interviews would allow. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. the organization planed to replace 200. 2006. In other words. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. 3.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005.Chapter 3: Methodology The goal for this project was to provide recommendations to PRASA (Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority) on how to improve their water meter management. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered.1. In 2006. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. 3. At the same time. The questionnaire 20 . the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received.000 water meters out of its approximately 1. Lastly. To do this. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow. This section will describe the methods used to evaluate Puerto Rico’s current efforts for meter replacement and allowed us to make recommendations on how the effort can be improved. 318). we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. PRASA replaced 100. Additionally. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system.3 million meters. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans. This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions.

water price and service reliability.2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan Our second method for evaluating the current plan was to survey/interview the customer service directors in all five regions of Puerto Rico. we used the same process for questions regarding their water consumption. These malls are on different sides of the island. By combining the results of the two malls. However. Plaza Las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe were the two malls at which we administered our survey. shopped at by people representing their communities. The sampling of different regions increased the quantity of responses and variety of the populace we questioned. See Appendix A for a sample questionnaire 3. Our goal was to have 150 questionnaires completed by the end of the survey. an attempt to increase the diversity of the responses was necessary. Convenience sampling was selected as the best sampling choice given the time frame and that a mall would be the best place to carry out our survey. The data received were categorized by question and graphed to determine if any correlations existed. Subsequently.1. Appendix C contains the questionnaire we administered to PRASA’s customers. Convenience sampling does not guarantee that the data collected were representative of the entire population of Puerto Rico. The questionnaire was reviewed and revised by PRASA officials until it was ready to be administered. Large numbers of people visit malls daily. we only received 84. This method provided us with multiple perspectives on the replacement effort by gathering opinions and concerns from each director 21 . The survey results were analyzed by first gathering and quantifying the customers’ opinions of PRASA. This meant that we had access to more people than if we were to go door to door or mail out surveys. due to time restraints and number of people willing to respond. a better representation of Puerto Rico was obtained. Therefore.measured the satisfaction of the customers and their awareness of a problem with meters on the island.

we asked. the agencies overseeing these other replacement efforts were asked what problems they encountered and if there was anything they would change about their plans. This involved reviewing their processes and determining if each was feasible for Puerto Rico. See Appendix B for a sample questionnaire. in person. In addition to the ones on the questionnaire.about the replacement. These responsibilities include meter replacement scheduling. The plan specifics of other water authorities were analyzed and the major replacement specifics were extracted. Information concerning progress of the current meter replacement was obtained and used to determine the state of the effort. and operating efficiency were all issues we felt were important to query on. This determination was influenced by the results of the director and customer surveys as well as conversations with our liaisons. we devised a small draft containing questions trying to elicit their thoughts on the efficiency of their current efforts. we reviewed the responsibilities of the customer service department in PRASA. We created specific questions that investigated these issues further to understand how each played a role in the department. we evaluated plans obtained from other agencies throughout the United States as discussed in Chapter 2. We traveled to director meetings in each region to deliver our questionnaires. From this. To create the survey questionnaire.1. the actual meter replacement and fielding customer requests. By determining what the directors were having a problem with. each major plan specific was 22 . specific questions about problems they were having with their replacement effort and their opinions on other matters. 3. Additionally. we were able to concentrate our focus on those sections and leave the functioning sections alone. costs. After this.3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations Researching past efforts was an important step in determining how to proceed. Budget. staffing. In light of this.

The information system in place at PRASA was thought to be outdated. meter costs and any other pertinent figures were gathered. A cost-benefit analysis was performed on the current situation to determine whether purchasing a new meter reading system was more cost-effective than keeping the current one. Any costs not available because they are not yet an issue for PRASA. Information concerning pricing. such as AMR reading and revenue increases due to better accuracy. PRASA was interested in obtaining new meter technology. They expressed interest in a type of meter that allowed an employee to collect meter readings wirelessly. The plans were gathered prior to arriving but the comparison took place in Puerto Rico. such as salaries of all personnel involved in the replacement. discounts on bulk purchases.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology In addition to an improved meter replacement plan. accessory costs and similar information was gathered about several different metering systems. 3. Costs on the current expenses. vehicle costs. were inferred by using related figures within PRASA. Using these figures. 3.1. The results of this CBA were used to indicate which meter technology would be most appropriate and cost effective for PRASA. Our research and research done by PRASA was used to determine what metering systems were analyzed. preventing PRASA from 23 . an established cost-benefit analysis methodology was used to reach our conclusion. Comparing plans established a better sense of PRASA’s relative level of efficiency and enabled us to further concentrate our focus for plan revisions.looked at and determined whether it could be directly implemented or adapted for use in Puerto Rico.2 Evaluation of Current Information System A good information system is central to having good data with which to make decisions.

3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan Meter replacement plans currently in place are not as effective as they could be. The following sections detail the methods used to create the new plan.1 Interview with System Administrators We spoke with the administrators of the PRASA data center to determine what problems existed and how they might be solved. applicable strategies were derived and combined with the suggestions from the staff and customers to create a final set of recommendations.3. 3. Questions regarding ease of use. Judgment was based on the size of the area the plan came from. During the interview. the data within the system itself could not be guaranteed to be 100 percent accurate. This method involved taking aspects from other plans and tailoring them to work for Puerto Rico. These surveys were to be filled out by employees that use the information system. the accuracy of the data and what data should be accessible were used to obtain employee reactions to the system. we sent out employee questionnaires along with the director questionnaires. we determined the age and shape of the system. Plan specifics from each plan were investigated and their suitability for Puerto Rico was judged.2. we determined what steps the administrators were taking to improve the system. 3. Additionally. 3. Finally. how inclusive the plan 24 .working efficiently. Additionally. We asked what kinds of reading systems worked with the current system and how readings taken in the field were inserted into the database. The plan must be enhanced with new procedures that are more efficient.1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans After the evaluation of current plans from other locations.

This method was chosen because it allowed the sponsors to give feedback on recommendations and enabled creation of the best plan possible for the authority. but came from a town with 20. This allowed our time to be spent more efficiently. Information we gathered was shared with our liaison in order to receive his feedback.000 meters. this size discrepancy must be taken into account when adapting the plan for use in Puerto Rico. Drafting the plan allowed us to determine what should be altered or improved.3. Director and customer surveys were all considered when choosing a plan to implement. modifying proven replacement strategies rather than creating new ones. Additional information such as complexity and cost was gathered and used in the judgment as well. This method answers the question: what does an efficient plan look like? The final product was a series of recommendations given to improve their meter replacement strategies. 3. This was continued throughout the initial drafting of the plan and the successive reviews and updates by our sponsor and advisors. The same idea is applicable to any meter replacement strategy: anything used from these plans must be applicable in a situation 10 times larger than the one it came from. Customer and director surveys helped to establish the current state of the system as well as what could be changed about it.was for that area and how successful the plan was in meeting their needs.2 Iterative Drafting of Plan The drafting process was the final stage of the plan development. If a replacement strategy calls for the testing of every meter. The cost-benefit analysis showed us 25 . Evaluating replacement plans indicated how PRASA ranks in relation to other water utilities and helped identify new replacement techniques. This methodology was successful in accomplishing our goal of providing recommendations on how to make PRASAs meter management better. PRASA has more meters to deal with than most American water authorities.

The final recommendations were made based on the results of our combined research. 26 . Interviews with the data center administrators determined what was needed to improve the information system.whether it was better for PRASA to keep their current system or replace it with a new one.

Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis The goal of our project was to provide PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) with recommendations and suggestions on how to improve their meter management system.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement The purpose of this evaluation was to gain an understanding of the current system as well as its major problems. Finally. our observations on the information system will be explained. In this chapter. Pricing. In general. we describe the results of our customer and director surveys.1 Customer Survey In total. we collected 84 Very Unsatisfied questionnaires from Plaza Las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe in San 5% Unsatisfied In the Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied Juan and Ponce. people were willing to give us their opinions of PRASA. Service Reliability and Interruptions. but many people did not have the time to fill out a questionnaire. 27 . director survey. The main points of the plan comparisons will be detailed and the results of the cost benefit analysis will be presented. This section will present our findings on the customer survey. Water Consumption Knowledge and 42% 22% 7% 24% Figure 1 – Overall Satisfaction with PRASA lastly. This chapter will focus on the analysis and presentation of our findings. replacement plan evaluation and the cost-benefit analysis. 4.1. The information collected from the questionnaires was separated into four different categories: Overall Rating of PRASA. 4.

Given our identity as PRASA representatives. seventy-one percent. These results did not match our original predictions. Whether interruptions. preventing their opinions from being determined. Service and reliability were the final concepts analyzed. people could have been hesitant about reporting any under billing. half saying the downtime was acceptable while the rest said this was unacceptable. Sixty-one percent of respondents said they were not given any warning before work was done that would leave them without water. of people said they were either satisfied or had no problem. Around 47% of people know how much water they are using. so this may not be an accurate representation of the actual number. Only 13% of people had nothing to say on the matter. 22%. Most of the articles studied about PRASA concerned the previous privatization. a large number of people reported they were not being under billed. painting a negative picture of what people thought of PRASA. the average downtime was reported in hours or days. In total. However. only 34% reported that PRASA was informing them of their water usage. were fixed promptly was a point of disagreement. Water consumption knowledge was the next concept analyzed. A smaller percentage of customers. where water problems are the worst. The people living in these areas do not frequent large malls such as Plaza las Americas and Plaza Del Caribe. a sensitive issue. A majority. Our preliminary predictions had people rating PRASA very negatively with only a few positive results. said they were very unsatisfied with PRASA’s service. It is important to note that the results of this survey likely do not represent the poorer communities in Puerto Rico.Overall opinions of PRASA were varied. We drew these conclusions from the news articles and other research we conducted. The rest were split down the middle. planned or otherwise. These articles were critical of the privatization. Only a few respondents reported 28 . Expectedly.

The following graph illustrates this point: Comparison of Overall Satisfaction to Service Reliability Rating 6 5 Reliabiliy Rating 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Satisfaction Figure 2 . Price was something customers were also concerned about. However. the bias of our survey does not allow us to know how long outages last in poorer communities. Approximately 57% of people surveyed said that they paid too much for their water. A scatter plot revealed that the lower the overall satisfaction. From this.having outages lasting longer than this. given that some people did not conform to this trend. Overall Satisfaction reveals a trend similar to the one above.Overall Satisfaction vs. 29 . the lower the service reliability rating. An interesting correlation between overall satisfaction and the service reliability rating was found. Reliability Rating An interesting observation about this graph is that some people rated their service reliability higher than their overall satisfaction. A scatter plot of Pricing vs. we can conclude that most people rated their satisfaction low because their service was not reliable. However. there are possibly other reasons why people are not satisfied with their water service.

41%. meaning neither category influenced their overall satisfaction more than the other. A similar number of people. emerges in this graph as well. When the numbers are compared side by side.Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction About 42% of people rated their reliability and pricing equally with their overall satisfaction. as seen in the following graph: Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction 3% 14% 41% 42% Both Equal Pricing Reliability Nothing Figure 4 . Only 14% said that reliability was the larger contributor and the 30 . people rating their overall satisfaction low when they rate their water prices fair.Satisfaction VS Pricing 6 Satisfaction Rating 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Price Rating Figure 3 .Overall Satisfaction vs. indicated that price was a larger factor than reliability in their overall reliability rating. Price Rating The same trend. respondents can be grouped into four categories. that is.

Some customers who followed the trend that pricing was a larger influence still rated reliability negatively. East. South. the West region seems to 31 Figure 5 – Required Personnel for Meter Replacement Technicians Required for Meter Replacement 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 34 51 23 45 12 34 51 23 45 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Responses Meter Size and Personnel Present . West Region officials are executing a 55 week plan to locate them all. as the diameter of the meter goes up. with the west region experiencing it the most. so does the number of employees required to change it. In the East region. they would hire more employees to help with their work. Of those regions.remaining 3% were dissatisfied with both pricing and service reliability. all directors reported that. pricing was closer to their overall satisfaction rating and vice versa. over 2000 meters were installed but not recorded into the information system. For these customers. Secondly.1. There were some common themes among the regions. See Appendices C and D for survey data. East. only that it was not the biggest influence. we have the results of four: Metro. all regions agree that.2 Director Interviews PRASA divides Puerto Rico into 5 regions: North. West and Metro. 4. Despite having problems. Firstly. if given the chance. Our interviews and questionnaires revealed that there is one major problem common among the regions: buried or inaccessible meters. West and South. This problem ranges from meters covered in trash to having the cover completely cemented over. The West region has a large number of buried meters or meters that can not be accounted for. Each region experiences this problem differently. However. This is not to say the customers were totally satisfied with either factor.

The primary difference between each region is how many meters they are having trouble locating. where a certain number of meters are replaced every year. does not have much more than simple goals for how many meters a particular area should replace in a certain amount of time. and Tampa. and an island plan would ensure that all regions are operating under the same replacement methods. Canada. set replacement schedules. private companies. any special consideration for each region can be dealt with separately. On the whole.1. While Seattle has a more sophisticated large meter replacement plan. we extracted the replacement techniques and evaluated their usefulness for Puerto Rico. G. Toronto. Tucson. From there. See Appendices E.be leading the replacement effort. Even places like Toronto. that is. There were several main replacement strategies that were encountered while going through replacement plans: meter testing. future predictions and how to choose which meters to replace. AZ. Their responses to all other questions were very similar. 32 . Their meter replacement plan is said to be the best and is being considered as a standard for the island. Their replacement schedule is similar to that of Tucson. no regional plans are necessary. PRASA wants island wide recommendations made. and H for survey data. Puerto Rico’s plan is equivalent in caliber to the other replacement plans that we have researched. While each region has its own issues to deal with. which spent a great deal of time and money on their meter replacement. These problems can be solved by adapting the island’s plan.3 Plan Comparisons For the plan comparison. Besides comparing the plans. their residential meter replacement plan is to work the meters until failure. plans were collected from locations such as Seattle. WA. F. 4. indicating the differences between the regions are minimal. FL.

This method. The beds can test 40 meters at a time and ensure that the meters are tested in the same manner. Currently. but an external company goes into the field and changes the meter. it is used only when customers request that testing be done on their meter. PRASA only has one bed for large meters and one bed for small meters. Additionally. the results of the director survey indicate that there are sufficient employees and technicians at PRASA to do the replacement themselves. There are only two ways available for PRASA to test the meters: test beds and individual testing. The second method is individual testing of the selected meters. The results are stored and analyzed to locate any problem areas. Tucson and PRASA both query their database for meters on the verge of failure. All meters are tested at some point during their life to determine which meters need to be replaced.000 meters while Puerto Rico has 1.3 million.699 people. Additionally. 33 . Tampa only has around 120. but the accuracy of testing could vary among test administrators and testing equipment. PRASA has a system to test a meter in half an hour. This method of testing could be done quicker and by more people than using the test beds.The city of Tampa uses strict testing procedures for their meter replacement. Tucson uses a private company to do the meter replacement. the beds are very expensive. Our contact at the Tucson Water Department said that using a private company was too much paperwork for a city of 486. Scaling this up to the island of Puerto Rico with 1. while a good way to ensure that the maximum life of a meter is reached. is not suitable for the island of Puerto Rico. The utility itself keeps track of which meters need to be replaced. but do not always use. making testing every meter on the island impractical. Currently. Prediction of meters that are going to fail is something that a few utilities (including PRASA) perform.3 million water meters would be a significant amount of paperwork and communication to consider.

will cost 34 .1% 100% PRASA cost documents.% 65.1. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order.6 Million 1303% 214. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems. such as contracting with a private company. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money. to determine the overall costs of each.5 Million $187. 4.4% 915. but they can be adapted to work. could be adapted but would not be cost effective.Comparison of AMR Systems AMR System/Meters Datamatic/AMCO Badger(ORION)/AMCO Badger(ORION)/Badger ITRON/AMCO Payback Period ROI 1 yr 5 mo ~11 years 3 yr 3 mo 2 yr 5 mo IRR Investment Total $142.3 Million $197. Five different systems were analyzed.3% -0. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement.3 Million $438. including the current system. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters. From internal Table 1 .The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered. Some techniques. This system. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico. over the course of 10 years.1% 0% 623. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. This works for most areas.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis The cost-benefit analysis performed allowed us to determine which metering and reading systems were the most cost-effective for PRASA. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated.

6 Million. To use a fixed-network system. There is.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly. ten Mobile AMR systems. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features. or around $11. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438.1 Million. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141. but with 20 Mobile AMR systems. a major drawback. which make it a good candidate for PRASA.3 Million for a 10-system kit. it would cost around $141. however. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. including its compatibility with a number of other meters. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work. as well as every other AMR system analyzed. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs. and personnel 35 . One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs. they are a very high-tech company. Additionally. and system optimization. On-Site training. Badger AMR hardware and software.4 Million for replacing all of the 1. significantly lower than the current reading cost. The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines. different transmitters would be needed.760. including the AMCO Meters. If they were to switch to another meter. For the same system. Thirdly. This system. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters.35 Million meters. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle.3 Million. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment.PRASA around $88.

if this system is chosen. but time as well. $7. Again. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter. However. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters. any meters installed after January 1st. Additionally. 2007. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. This system. it would be a reliable choice. raising the total cost for this system by 7. the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece.000 worth of meters would have been wasted. If this system did not represent such a large investment.training. would cost about $197.5 Million dollars. Besides this issue. This means that. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. at the least. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197.000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and.500.5 Million. A 20-system kit would cost around $438. However. This system is very similar to the other Badger system. 36 . the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply.7 Million. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. The system. with 10 mobile AMR systems.5 Million and would enable the authority to read the entire island’s meters in a fraction of the time it takes with manual reading. accurately. Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system. using the same transmitters. 330. in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. the issue concerning the older meters is an important one. The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement.

The transmitters can interface with either a vehicle mounted reading system or a fixed-network reading system. 4. while not being the cheapest. This system wound up being the second cheapest option with a final cost of around $182.The final system analyzed was a system from ITRON Automated Systems which would use the AMCO V100 meter.2. This is a significant improvement in technology and puts the system in a much better position than we previously had thought.2 Evaluation of Information System The information system used at PRASA contains meter age and usage information as well as billing and similar information. while the billing software is roughly 10 years old. Additionally. This means additional transmitters would not be necessary for the upgrade to fixed-network.1 Million for a system with 10 mobile AMR devices. During our interview. This flexibility coupled with the inexpensive price tag makes this an ideal candidate. or around $183 Million for a system with 20 mobile AMR devices. the data center administrators demonstrated their knowledge and grasp of the situation by answering all our questions quickly and completely. The administrators indicated that the current hardware 37 . Our first impressions of the system were that it appeared to be outdated and difficult to use. This system. Our conversations with the system administrators were helpful in learning about the system to determine possible improvements. boasts a very important feature.1 Interview with Administrators Information we discovered upon meeting with the information system administrators contradicted initial impressions of the system. the hardware is only three. 4. First and foremost. The data center has a very modern and professional look. this system is the preferred system of the Customer Service department and the system they were looking into the most.

38 . the data center has been analyzing the bids it received for a new information system. Additionally. The main problem they are having is maintenance. to a more traditional server model. The data and analysis presented in this section were used to reach conclusions and form recommendations that would benefit PRASA in both the near and distant future. powerful but older computers used for intensive calculations. They will be moving away from mainframes. Their goal is to have the upgrade process finished within three years. is not as efficient and user friendly as a newer program. newer computers based on a different architecture that makes them easier to use and maintain. a ten year old software program. A complete system shutdown and restart takes between 6 and 7 hours. Currently. while still doing its job.setup was more than capable of meeting the needs of PRASA.

Based on this. and a feasibility study of newer metering technologies. specifically. PRASA will 39 . no longer uses efficient reading practices. This section details our conclusions and recommendations on these issues. Automatic meter reading systems have been readily available. processes relating to customer service were investigated. we formed conclusions and recommendations to help PRASA improve their meter management practices and information system. This section will detail our conclusions about each system. for around 10 years. and then will present our recommendations for the best AMR system to use. 5. how the meters are replaced and what they should be replaced with. and widely used. The current reading practices cost PRASA around 11 million per year which is significantly more than the costs to use the newer AMR systems. we performed an evaluation of their current practices.1 Meter Replacement Strategies The majority of this project dealt with meter replacement strategies.1 Metering Technology The results of the cost-benefit analysis were used to determine which system PRASA should implement in order to reduce overall costs and improve the efficiency and accuracy of the meter readings. These systems have rendered manual reading practices virtually obsolete. an investigation of other water authorities.1. 5. Simply by switching to any AMR system. The current system. Additionally.Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations The goal of this project was to provide recommendations and suggestions to PRASA (Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority) regarding their water meter replacement strategies and management techniques. while using quality meters. To this end.

any AMCO meters in the field would need to be replaced by Badger hardware. Adding this to the already expensive $197. This represents at the very least a $7. The astronomical cost does not allow this system to pay itself off in an acceptable amount of time. While being the cheapest system. This would leave PRASA attempting to recover from its losses for a long period of time. Based on these evaluations. To use this system. The only system without a major drawback is the ITRON AMR and AMCO meters system.reap the benefits of a significant decrease in expenses per year.500. Thus we recommend that PRASA move to a newer AMR system as soon as possible in order to save money and increase its revenue generation potential.000 loss in meters and an additional two years of replacement. and certainly more difficult to recover from. 11 years as opposed to 2 or 3 for the other systems. represents a large investment of time and money to replace the currently installed meters. Its low cost makes it comparable to Datamatic but the flexibility it offers when it comes to vehicle and fixed-network reading makes it the only real choice. the transmitters for vehicle reading are not compatible with a fixed-network system. This cost is a large one. it has a significant drawback that does not allow us to recommend it. The system that uses Badger meters and AMR devices. Additionally. This is something PRASA needs to have the flexibility to do without more cost and replacement issues. while providing one of the better integrated solutions. Similarly. Although the Datamatic system is the least expensive. 40 .8 Million system renders a cost of nearly $205 Million. the system using Badger AMR and AMCO meters is far too expensive to consider. the increased accuracy and efficiency will lead to significantly higher revenue generation as well. using the ITRON AMR system with the currently installed AMCO V100 water meters is the most cost-effective solution as it will save PRASA the same amount each year and provide them with quality and flexible AMR technology from a company they have been doing business with for many years.

In order to do this. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. In January they replaced 15. If not. 5.1. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year. PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter.000 meters of their goal.225 meters and in February they replaced 21. At the end of the year.1. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. starting in 2006.164 meters per month. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip.000 meters. the goal and the actual number should be compared. an average of 200. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. These numbers average 18.000 meters a month. If PRASA is within 20. In order to facilitate this replacement.967 meters by the end of this year.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology.3 Meter Replacement Timeline PRASA would like to be able to replace every meter on the island within a timeframe of 6 to 7 years. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed. meters should be replaced in groups. Given this information.5. they replaced roughly 18.269.000 to 30. Continuing their current trend. According to data received during the plan comparison. In March. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology.000 meters should be replaced each year. they should continue. they could replace 217. Meters close to 41 .

Samples taken over time could provide a more accurate measurement of meter life and usage. each region would need at least one test bed of its own.needing replacement should be considered for replacement. so grouping is easy. fewer PRASA technicians will be needed to do meter readings. a refined meter replacement timeline could be made.1. Densely populated regions lend themselves to this strategy because their meters are close together. 5. The number of meters PRASA manages is too large to test every one in a timely manner. The use of a test bed would allow many meters to be tested at once. For test beds to be used. PRASA only has one small meter test bed. Testing every meter is only possible if meters are grouped and tests are done over a long period of time. it would take 140 employees 11 weeks to test 130. however. This would allow testing to be done on site and the results recorded immediately. a separate trip to the meter will not be necessary in the future.000 meters.4 Meter Testing With the introduction of AMR. From this. not counting travel time or other breaks. This testing should be done with the equipment used to test a meter at a customer’s request. a representative sample of meters could be used to determine the health of the system. Additionally. the time needed to collect and replace the selected meters and bring them back for testing is more work than doing the testing on site. The increase in available personnel could be utilized for a meter-testing plan. Other water authorities have implemented similar techniques with positive results. Selecting which meters to test is important. At half an hour a test. This way. Therefore. This could be done over the course of ten years until all meters had been serviced. Replacing a still functioning meter may save money by doing so along with meters that do need replacing. Sparsely populated regions would benefit from this by reducing the travel time needed to go from meter to meter. 42 .

A faster paced replacement timeline would require more work from the technicians. replacing the meters sooner. If the increase in work is minimal. This way.A method that would produce quicker results would be random testing. If it is determined that a region’s meters do not last as long as other regions. A slower paced replacement timeline would allow more meters to be tested by the workers not needed for meter replacement. 5. through testing. It is possible that the entire island would show a significant increase or decrease in average meter life after these tests. If this is so. The current meter 43 .1. This will ensure that a meter is replaced once it begins to underestimate water usage. Adjusting its replacement timeline to make better use of the meter would save time and money. Each region would randomly select 10-20% of the meters on each reading route to test.5 Informing Customers of Work to be Done One of the major results of the survey was that 61% of customers felt they were not given sufficient time before work was done that would leave them without water. the replacement timeline for the entire island would be changed to match the new data. for example. If. Randomly selecting from the regional pool of meters could result in grouping and depict an inaccurate portrayal of the region. it is determined that a particular region’s meters last longer than the others. that region should replace their meters less often. If the work is too much. replacement schedules can be adjusted so workers from adjacent regions could assist in the replacement. workers from the metro and north regions could concentrate on the metro region one week and the northern region the next. the replacement should be stepped up. Selecting meters from each route as opposed to from the entire region would ensure that each round of testing took meters from all over the region. additional workers could be hired or replacement schedules could be offset in order for resource pooling to be more effective. removing the need to hire more workers.

coupled with the experience and talent employees at PRASA.replacement plan states that meters needing replacement in the near future are searched for in the database. The preferred method of notification as indicated by 64% of the customers was postal mail. will help improve meter management and customer satisfaction by better utilizing resources and information.2 Information System Recommendations While PRASA is using relatively old software and slightly newer hardware that should be replaced. These two pieces of information can be combined and the customer could be informed approximately when services like meter replacement would happen. 5. To save postage. PRASA should continue on its present course in the information system area without any changes. They hope to have the upgrade process completed within three years. These recommendations. Customers would be given a window of time. 44 . the PRASA data center is in the process of collecting and analyzing bids for a new system. during which their meter would be replaced. the notification could be sent with the water bill in the form of an insert to catch the customers’ attention. Any possible concerns or conflicts could be dealt with prior to the work. Based on the amount of progress the data center has already made and the level of competence we saw in the data center administrators.

Retrieved Feb 26th from http://www. Determining the economical optimum life of residential water meters. 20-24. Water Engineering & Management 143(9). Retrieved on Jan 30th. Ondeo terminated in Puerto Rico. R.References 1. 2006 8.html This website is a source of suppliers and prices of water meters. Water Metering and Meter Reading Technology Options for the City of Toronto. Bernard.com/flowmeter_artc/flowmeter_artc_05082801. Morera. Larry. Retrieved From Aquastat online database http://www. (2006). Retrieved on Jan 30th. Talks about water meter replacement and how often to replace them to minimize costs. (2005). Hans D. (2004). City of Toronto. Lorraine.org/New%20Projects/prasa-1. BadgerMeters Inc. Document – Badger Meter Price Sheet. Canfield.stm Provides water usage statistics for many areas around the world (including Puerto Rico) as well as other related statistics. WI. Unpublished internal document. 2. 5.fao. (2002). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – Land and Water Development Division. (1986).flowmeterdirectory. Gomez. A good general background for flow meters.ca/legdocs/2002/agendas/committees/wks/wks021009/it002. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning Badger metering systems 45 . Flanagan. New York: AltaMira Press.pdf An in depth analysis on Toronto. Provides recommendations and time tables on what to do and when to do it. Considerations and research methods. V. Retrieved on Jan 30th..org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/dbase/index. Preventative maintenance plays a role in the replacement of flow meters before they actually fail. Canada’s water system. Cost optimization of periodic preventive maintenance. (1996).htm Contains information concerning Ondeo and their relationship with the government. 78-81. 35(1). 6. Blasor.toronto. Retrieved Feb 20th from http://www. Article talks about preventative maintenance and how to make sure you are getting the most out of it. CFO. (2006). Allender. Russell. Milwaukee. 4. H. used primarily for the construction of surveys 3. 2006 7. (2005).waterindustry. Research Methods in Anthropology 3rd edition. What is this thing called calorimetric?. 2006 from The Flow meter directory http://www. IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

San Juan. 17. 20 (3). Pigram. Luciano. ITRON. . PR.org/Water-Facts/puerto%20rico4. NJ. Document – Datamatic Price Sheet. 2006 from http://www. It is important to know all of the water issues concerning all areas of Puerto Rico to better understand how the meters would be placed. 143(8). Luciano. (2006). Perez. Michigan.pdf 46 . 12. Unpublished internal document.waterindustry. Integrated Water Resources Management in the Luquillo Mountains. Anatomy of a water meter replacement program. Jackson. Government took reins of water authority. (2005). 14.iqsdirectory. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning AMCO metering systems 18. (2006). Water Resources Management in Island Environments: The Challenge of Tourism Development. Water Engineering & Management.R (2004). PRASA. (2006). 387-398. Retrieved Jan 30 from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Atlantic City. Water management issues for an area of Puerto Rico.une. 22-23. (1993).9. (2006). John. (2000). Ortiz-Zayas. (2006). Will help us get an idea of what people have done in the past 15. Mark. Water Engineering & Management.htm This is article details PRASA’s previous experience with privatization 16. Document – ITRON Meter Price Sheet. San Juan. Miguel. M. Alphonso. Retrieved Jan. Henry. PRASA. Document – AAA Revenue and Consumption Figures. Unpublished internal document. (1996). PR. McPhaul. 140(1). This report detailed meter system prices given to Miguel by Datamatic. Unpublished internal document. faced strike. Puerto Rico: An Evolving Process. The Industrial Manufacturers Directory. 21-22. 13. J. 30. WA. Will help us gain perspective on previous water replacement programs.Flow Meters (http://www. AMR installation: Make your own decision. PR. Isabella. Retrieved on Jan 30th. William P. This report contained data on internal PRASA costs and consumption figures.edu. McLees.au/cwpr/Papers/update. Document – AMCO Meter Price Sheet. 2006 11. Retrieved February 10th from http://www. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Pontiac.com/info/flow-meters/index. Unpublished internal document. International Journal of Water Resources Development. Spokane. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning ITRON metering systems 10. John J. Miguel.htm) Basic information on water meters as well as links to many other places on the internet dealing with water meters. AMCO.

Retrieved on Jan 30th. June). Horsman.pnl. Discusses their venture into Puerto Rico 22. (2005).html) Gives more statistics on the water infrastructure of the PRASA (Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority). 19. Water engineering & management.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL14533. Article talks about preventative maintenance and different styles of doing so. 26. Names big water consuming companies as well as general water use patterns for Puerto Rico. Zane. (2002).com/english/operational_advantages/4.pridco. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Water Management Plan for Fort Buchanan.pdf A look at various Vivendi projects and their outcomes. Preventative maintenance plays a key role in keeping a large system of breakable units running smoothly. 59(12).. Retrieved Feb 20th.htm) Provided current and future PRASA water rates for the island of Puerto Rico 20. Smith. Plant Engineering.S. 23.com/nueva_estructura_tarifaria.nesc. Vipin. 21. 2006. Water Meters. (2000). Puerto Rico. 2006 from http://www. Vivendi Universal – Corporate Profile. 147(8). & Bhardwaj. Conozca su nueva tarifa Retrieved March 23rd from (http://www. 2006.. U. Provides a glimpse at the water concerns for this fort and metering concerns and distribution for this fort. Water (http://www. MA. Puerto Rico. Unpublished IQP report. Kendra. 25. PRASA – Nueva Estructura Tarifaria. (2002). The article gives pertinent information on water island concerns. 37. Retrieved Jan 30th.polarisinstitute. (2004). 47 . Dale. 24.The article talks about tourism and how water management plays an important role when that tourism is on an island. Will give another perspective on how other people think water meters should be handled. Schlenger. IQP – Water Conservation Options for Fajardo. specifically the section on metering. Best Meter Management Practices for Water Utilities. (2004. Retrieved Jan 30th. Pridco – Operation Advantages Infrastructure. Anthony M. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database Gives water meter purchasing and management advice.3opr_adv_infrastructure.wvu. (2006). Satterfield. 2006 from http://www.pdf Article provides reasons for having flow meters other than customer payment as well as meter information. Donald L. Darren. & Hanson Eric. Four task categories to understand in undertaking preventive maintenance.pdf Water management plan for a fort in North Western Puerto Rico. It helps to justify why the meters need to be fixed. from http://www. (2006). Puscas.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SU04/TechBrief_WaterMeters. Shea. Department of Energy.acueductospr. 14-15. Worcester.org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/VivendiProfile. WPI.

27.edu/Academics/Depts/IGSD/IQPHbook/ch1. University of Sheffield. Metrics and suggestions for evaluating information systems. 28. WPI Global Perspectives Program. The IQP and the WPI Plan http://www. Wilson.wpi. (1985). Evaluation Strategies for Library/Information Systems. 48 . (2004). Tom. Unpublished paper.html Contains the definition of an IQP.

como parte de un proyecto educativo.Appendices Appendix A: Customer Questionnaire Estudio Sobre el Servicio de Agua En Puerto Rico Aclaración: Este documento es un estudio sobre las opiniones del servicio de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. el precio de agua es apropiado. se me factura por menos agua de la que uso. Comparado a lo que pago por otras utilidades. No sé exactamente la cantidad de agua que uso. Se me factura por la cantidad de agua que uso. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 3. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 5. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 2. También. Será administrado por estudiantes de Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Edad: _________ Ciudad: _____________________ Tipo de Residencia: ___________________ Casa Sexo: Masculino ó Femenino Ocupación: ________________________ Apartamento Condominio Otro Por favor circule el artículo que se siente retrata lo mejor sus opiniones. Usualmente. toda de esta información será privada y anónima. y por la Autoridad en un intento de mejorar servicio a sus clientes. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 4. La información obtenida de este estudio sólo será usada para los propósitos del proyecto. 1. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 49 . estoy satisfecho con el servicio que ofrece la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA). como electricidad. En general. una universidad de los Estados Unidos.

Debo estar notificado por: Correo Teléfono En Persona Correo Electrónico Toda de Estas Maneras 9. cuando ocurrieron. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 7. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 10. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 11. ¿Cuánto tiempo antes del servicio Vd. sobre algún trabajo que la AAA va a realizar y me va a dejar sin agua. debe estar notificado? 1-3 días un Mes 3-5 días 5-7 días 2 semanas Un Mes Más de 8. Las interrupciones de servicio en mi casa o comunidad pueden durar por días o semanas. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 12. El servicio de agua en mi comunidad es interrumpido frecuentemente. Algunas interrupciones de servicio.6. descríbalos: Sí No __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 50 . Durante el día. fueron corregidas pronto. con tiempo suficiente. ¿Ha tenido unos problemas sobre que debemos saber? Por Favor. el tiempo más conveniente de trabajar en mi sistema de agua es: La Mañana Medio Día La Tarde 13. Se me notifica.

dénos sus opiniones en las preguntas siguientes: Discrepo Los contadores usados ahora son los mejores para la Isla La tecnología para leer los contadores de agua usada ahora es la mejor. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Convengo 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 1) ¿En promedio. Los contadores usados ahora están los mejores por usar con AMR. cuántos técnicos están en un reemplazo de contador? Técnicos Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. AMR debe ser instalado tan pronto que sea posible. y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ a) ¿Cuántas personas están necesario por un reemplazo de contador? Técnicos Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ 51 . no-técnicos. AMR es el paso próximo por la tecnología de leer.Appendix B: Customer Service Questionnaire INSPECCIÓN DEPARTMENTAL – SERVICIO DEL CLIENTES Las respuestas de este estudio estarán usadas en un Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) por un grupo de estudiantes de Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 1) Por favor. Para asegurar la representación correcta de su departamento. por favor conteste las preguntas lo más completa y honradamente que pueda.

Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores. ¿qué tipos de problemas pueden ocurrir durante de un reemplazo? (a) Tubos Viejos (c) Seguridad (b) Control de Acceso (d) Vegetación o Hierba Excesiva (e) Otro _____________________________________________ 3) ¿Qué se puede hacer para hacer este proceso más eficiente? Discrepo Debe haber más técnicos. ¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) Si es la verdad. Debe haber menos técnicos. no-técnicos. Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos. Tubo y contador deben ser conectados antes de cada instalación: (Reemplazando los términos de los tubos cada vez) Especialización de los Técnicos: (Sólo trabajan en un tipo de contador específico: 5/8” o 2”+) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 Convengo 5 5 5 5 4) ¿Cuántos empleados están en el departamento de Servicio de los Clientes en su región? _____________________________________________ a) ¿Debe haber más? b) ¿Debe haber menos? Sí Sí No No 52 . Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. y técnicos) Reemplazo de Contador Residencial 2” – 4” Reemplazo de Contador 4” – 6” Reemplazo de Contador 6” – 8” Reemplazo de Contador 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ b) ¿Afecta las decisiones de su organización el Sindicato? Poquito Sí No Mucho Si es la verdad.

¿Cuántos empleados crearían una situación ideal por su departamento? ______________ 53 .

8 10 3 2 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 1 4 3 5 2 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 4 5 3 2 1 1 1 5 3 0 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2.9 5 4 3 4 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 4 4 3 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 5 2 2 4 5 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2.Customer Survey Results .Appendix C: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Las Americas QUESTION ANSWERS: 1 3 4 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 1 3 3 5 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 4 2 4 5 4 3 4 4 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 Average: 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 5 2 2 5 2 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 2.Plaza Las Americas 54 .7 9 4 2 4 2 2 3 1 2 5 5 1 2 2 4 4 2 1 3 5 2 2 5 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 2.9 11 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 2.26 Table 2 .7 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 2 5 1 3 5 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 1 4 2 2 7 4 4 1 2 5 5 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 5 4 4 3 1 2 3 1 5 5 3 2 3 2 5 1 2 1 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 8 2 3 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 4 2 5 4 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 3 4 2 4 2 2.9 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 2 3 1 0 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 1.

Plasa Las Americas Reliable PRASA Service 31% 46% Is Not Reliable No Decision Is Reliable 23% Figure 6 .Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied In the Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied 5% 22% 42% 7% 24% Figure 5 .Overall Satisfaction of Customers with PRASA .Plaza Las Americas 55 .Opinions on Reliability of PRASA Service .

Customer Survey Results .Appendix D: Customer Survey Results – Plaza Del Caribe Age 1 24 59 64 59 38 63 22 52 31 58 50 54 60 38 57 68 30 60 54 75 67 48 73 37 23 52 51 31 33 53 1 1 4 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 4 1 3 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 4 5 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 5 2 1 5 2 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 2 3 4 1 3 2 3 3 6 5 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 7 6 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 4 5 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 8 5 5 3 2 1 5 12 5 13 5 1 5 123 1 3 3 23 5 5 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 5 5 otro 1 9 1 3 3 2 2 4 1 5 4 5 5 5 4 2 2 3 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 10 5 2 4 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 3 4 4 4 1 2 4 2 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 11 1 2 3 2 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 1 4 2 2 1 4 1 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 12 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 Table 3 .Ponce 56 .

Satisfaction with Service in Ponce 10% 30% 27% 33% Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 7 .Ponce 57 .Satisfaction with Service in Ponce Opinions on Price of Water 23% 3% 23% Very Expensive Expensive In the Middle Not Expensive Not Very Expensive 17% 34% Figure 8 – Opinions of the Price of Water .

Metro Region 58 .b yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 yes yes ALL 1 2 3 4 yes yes a.b.c.Results from Director Interview .b.c yes b/obs yes a.d #1 2 2 4 4 3 #2 3 1 3 3 3 #3 3 1 3 3 3 #4 3 3 NA NA NA #5 3 1 3 3 3 #6 3 1 3 3 3 #7 2 1 3 3 3 #8 5 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 NA NA NA NA 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 yes yes obs yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 4 no yes a.d 5 1 4 4 3 2 52 66 1 2 2 4 1 2 42 50 1 2 1 2 1 2 39 47 1 5 5 5 5 1 70 NA 1 2 2 4 1 2 39 41 1 2 3 3 1 1 64 10+ 4 3 1 2 1 1 35 47 1 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA Table 4 .b.Appendix E: Director Survey Results – Metro Region Question Are the current meters the best? Is the technology used to read the meters is the best? AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR How many technicians go to a replacement? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees go to a replacement? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians are necessary? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees are necessary? Residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? no yes a.b NA NA NA NA no yes a.

Technicians Present for Meter Replacement – Metro Region 59 .Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – Metro Region Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Technicians Present For Meter Replacement Figure 10 .Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 9 .

Opinions on Current Reading Technology – East Region 60 .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 11 – Opinions on Current Meter Technology – East Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 12 .

Appendix F: Director Survey Results – East Region Question Are the current meters the best? Is the technology used to read the meters is the best? AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR How many technicians go to a replacement residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees go residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians are necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many employees are necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? #1 3 1 3 3 3 #2 1 2 5 5 1 #3 5 3 5 5 3 #4 NA NA NA NA NA #5 3 3 3 3 3 #6 3 1 5 5 4 #7 5 3 5 5 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 yes yes a.Metro Region 61 .d 1 3 3 4 NA yes e 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes a.d 6+ 6++ 6+ 6+ yes yes d 1 3 3 3 yes yes a 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes b.Results from Director Interview .d 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes ALL 1 5 2 5 3 3 225 275 1 5 4 5 5 4 NA 10 1 5 5 5 5 5 62 70 1 5 2 5 5 3 250 70 1 1 1 5 5 5 20 20 2 4 3 5 4 1 300 310 1 5 1 5 1 2 250 300 Table 5 .b.

Technicians Required for Meter Replacement – East Region Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 Technicians Present For Meter Replacement 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Figure 14 .Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 13 .Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement – East Region 62 .

Appendix G: Director Survey Results – South Region Question Are these meters are the best the technology used to read the meters is the best AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR how many technicians go to residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches how many employees go residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians is necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? yes yes all #1 na na na na na #2 1 5 5 5 na #3 2 2 5 5 5 #4 4 3 3 4 2 #5 3 3 3 3 3 #6 3 3 3 3 3 na na na na #7 5 #8 3 3 3 3 3 #9 4 4 na na na #10 1 1 1 1 1 #11 2 4 3 3 4 #12 2 3 5 5 2 #13 2 3 5 5 3 na na na na 2 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 na na na 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 4 5 1 3 3 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 na na na 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 5 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 yes yes abd 2 2 3 4 yes 2 3 3 3 no yes all 1 2 2 2 no 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 no no na 1 na na na yes yes ALL 1 2 3 3 yes yes b 1 1 2 3 na y bcd y 1 2 3 3 y n 3 3 3 3 n n 1 2 4 5 n n 1 2 2 2 yes a.d yes all y abd 1 5 1 1 1 1 250 na 4 1 0 5 5 5 43 50 5 1 5 5 5 5 50 50 1 1 2 2 1 1 14 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 183 na 4 4 4 4 4 4 14 na 3 3 2 3 3 1 38 na 3 2 2 3 1 1 39 40 3 3 3 3 3 na 38 48 5 1 5 5 3 5 43 51 4 4 3 4 3 4 55 na 2 na 2 4 3 2 42 49 2 4 2 4 4 2 42 49 Table 6 .South Region 63 .b.Results from Director Survey .

Satisfaction with the Current Meters the best 9% good 18% not the best 18% not the best not good neutral good neutral 27% not good 28% the best Figure 15 .Satisfaction with the Current Meters .Necessity of Automatic Reading – South Region 64 .South Region The Necessity of Automatic Reading very necessary 46% not at all not right away 9% 0% not at all neutral 36% necessary 9% not right away neutral necessary very necessary Figure 16 .

Number of People Present at Meter Replacement .South Region 65 .Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" People Required Figure 17 .Number of People Required for Meter Replacement – South Region Number of People Who Actually Go 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12345123 451234512345 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Who Actually Go Figure 18 .

Appendix H: Director Survey Results – West Region Question these meters are the best the technology used to read the meters is the best AMR is the next step AMR needs to be installed ASAP these meters are the best to use with AMR how many technicians go to residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches how many employees go residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches How many technicians is necessary residential 5/8 2 inches -4 inches 4 inches to 6 inches 6 inches to 8 inches Does the union affect your decision Problems with acessing the meters what types what can you do to make it more efficient more technicians less technicians teach technicians better technicians should have better instruments the pipe and meter should be connected after each installation have specialized technicians how many people are in the customer service how many should there be? y y bd #1 5 5 5 5 5 #2 #3 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 3 3 3 #4 #5 5 2 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 1 2 4 4 1 2 3 3 y y bd 1 2 3 3 y 0 0 0 0 y y abd 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 NA y bd y all 1 1 1 2 3 1 200 220 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 220 5 1 0 4 2 2 41 48 2 5 5 2 1 1 169 less 4 2 5 5 3 2 36 41 Table 7 .Director Survey Results – West Region 66 .

Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .5 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 21 .5 3 2.West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .5 2 1.West Region Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 4 3.Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .5 1 0.Opinions on Current Reading Technology .West Region 67 .Opinions on Current Meter Technology .

West Region 68 .5 1 0.5 0 123451234 512345123 45 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement Figure 22 .Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement .Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.

86 77.6 2.84 461.37 569.13 294.65 2.53 1.71 19.87 123.61 2.Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Data Specific meter costs obtained from various meter manufacturers could not be made public and included in this report due to reasons of commercial confidentiality Water Rates Table 8 .18 26.456.16 1.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.258.43 31.49 131.70 0 Fase 2 10.85 213.65 4.09 638.51 22.56 1. 2006.93 1.95 38.72 107.84 94.13 1.15 16 .67 11.869.607.45 0 Fase 2 21.1 1.162.23 36.6 16.63 1.11 384.Current and Future (PRASA.03 910.97 786.64 171.15 16 .79 0 Commercial/Government 1.58 50.013.77 277.991.22 85.45 0 69 .9 1.35 > 35 11 .67 2.41 Fase 2 1.09 1.44 1.33 61.Water Rates .28 Industrial 1.6 1.13 1.88 1. Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .73 53.07 1.135.584.35 > 35 > 10 0.

00 58 249. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 1.00 0.82 $1. Precio Costo Estimada A 177.784.42 0.218.00 306.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.28 3.00 10 1.00 18 274.03 Real C 49908 56.00 45 2.90 3.562.39 $1. G (Luciano.494.11 0.00 Estimada C 58.90 5. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.79 $1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.97 48 3.65 $1.201.36 3098 209.15 799 429.00 372. 2006) 3 264.00 2 4.07 1908 999.17 1939 120.49 $1.00 0.61 $1.441.47 $1.00 42.00 20 5.39 655 558. C. B.28 439.14 0.Consumption Figures Table 9 .96 0.74 0.793. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.70 42 3.843.71 1783 1.450.00 3 1.00 0.00 Real A 125 39.36 2521 246.081.00 32 95.347.28 299.00 4 65.28 2.180.00 Real B 9 37.90 0.77 0.70 0.717.04 0.367.00 0.Consumption Figures – A.31 $1.34 $1.00 2 1.148.85 0.636. F. AAA Revenue.58 $1.20 $1.792.00 46.00 1 13. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 Estimada B 9.71 1430 137.00 32.90 0.00 0.11 $1.28 189.053.90 0.339.922.394.61 70 .90 0.873.00 694.95 0. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 829.851.466.45 0.219.87 0.16 0.38 0.119.90 0.

00 312.96 0.830.63 $1.775.28 1.410.292.02 $1. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 0.00 195.88 0.074.00 12.00 0.18 $1.809.631.505.00 3 5.00 106.84 71 .00 31.00 123 6.32 119 7.543.98 $1.45 66.67 $1.63 6 29.28 223.653.89 0.565.827.970.00 11.00 0.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.334.111.00 0.49 15 30.17 0.99 0.43 13 30.00 0.891.398.55 5 25.00 862.37 56.480.90 1.476.824. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 593.36 $14.705.996. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.39 0.45 0.00 0.00 2 7.90 761.49 $9.00 132.25 0.00 0.23 $1.00 4 5.099.615.00 762.00 245.00 24.90 0.

99 $1.00 86.58 57 1.71 $1.090.00 135.451.00 0.503.355.87 0.031.00 3.945.87 $1.31 2.90 $4.236.90 $2.90 $921.706.111.00 6.173.492.610.635.92 56.178.00 1.482.745.95 328 621.444.80 $1.95 3.846.466.00 0.43 0.082.00 2.15 $7.648.184.094.00 0.68 $1.33 Real Total 53.87 $1.76 $1.14 $1.062.091.18 1735 1.00 84.00 115.02 0.34 $6.295.90 859.00 22.00 Estimada G 5.00 0.52 4.90 3.90 Real G 4004 112.70 128 4.90 Estimada Total 64.90 $5.919.23 0.60 1001 265.18 $1.60 1.35 $1.55 105.90 $444.140.34 983.350.879.643.157.504.00 2.00 72 .06 $1.029.00 64.523.90 107.00 445.23 1136 1.90 387.00 236.488.00 5.37 $414.00 0.126.501.22 0.443.14 507 149.74 $1.36 $470.43 41 16.95 $1.95 0.69 $2.00 1.94 $1.811.14 659.184.222.558.668.889.00 166.62 955.00 819.784.77 80.08 38 1.25 3.649.414.91 177 4.912.062.180.94 300.32 247.49 $1.90 $1.26 $1.833.00 9.00 Real F 1 8.83 $1.90 98.00 23.90 505.00 1.067.00 0.349.17 1629 264.26 0.513.013.07 0.15 $1.145.91 $1.68 39.253.086.90 1.421.00 144.198.00 256.26 26 13.072.67 1.00 1.391.45 550 461.136.94 2.00 590.818.446.695.769.00 481.502.851.522.710.95 265 194.44 $1.727.90 $304.00 0.686.99 0.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.

C (comercial).343.534.90 4 92.789.158.00 171.406.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.781.825.12 G= Gobierno A = Cuentas de la AAA R = Residencial Privado (cuentas regulares) C= Comercial Tipo de Cliente = Basicamente te resume los Service Class ejemplo Los service class R (residencial).268.08 6.00 451.930.98 0.685.489.713.30 $1.22 $8.63 9.73 77.148.00 59.00 1.44 63.44 $19.633.00 1.955.00 208.02 $22.11 $10.00 8.29 10.00 589.286.621.28 704.048.00 1.90 11.95 $0.408. I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .662.623.00 110.00 9.888.5 192.60 $949.24 $1.28 $2.87 $0.

49 140.475.80 110 698.00 84.570.444.80 129 564.67 29.123.67 Estimada P 50.69 299.22 4079 74 .86 2.12 240 711.65 160 260.67 390.413.85 2.108.86 1 5.48 1. P. R.50 2.66 1.45 146 390. and Totals (Luciano.67 3.783.695.600.16 Estimada R 1.469.01 4661 16.49 264.802.763. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.015.16 0.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.10 2.34 1.67 137.16 1.00 10 18.570.16 227.69 1.39 2.600.01 2.43 1.198.97 12 566.16 32.311.085.16 277.361.955.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.52 55 224.759.16 157.16 128.54 1.I. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.35 2.20 1.28 85.92 1.00 30.94 368.81 1082 118.66 1 3.02 301.46 10 763.66 795 902.34 18 7.28 770 1.75 2.67 1.430. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 27 0.67 37 0.Table 10 .551.025.Consumption Figures .800.708.16 69.11 71.67 62.374. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.83 1.525.67 0.039.377.00 30.67 451.414.16 Real R 967258 34.76 110 339.53 85.54 269 515.759.00 6 10.489.58 18 7. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.54 1.747.84 72.67 Real I 161 110.95 74 1. AAA Revenue.16 Real P 39673 32.87 2.90 2.16 123.36 2.798.00 17 14.07 2.54 1249 97.87 2.

25 12 28.75 5.316.16 1.526.03 1.15 0.67 12.98 1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.67 209.733.425.882. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.380.86 73.059.75 1.720.27 73.53 2.24 0.770.898.67 0.051.785.313.00 1.47 2.66 20 2.770.04 5.00 0.133.44 1.08 2.33 94.88 1.010.708.85 101 9.388.404.243.67 0.697.376.896.38 105 10.808.333.00 34.00 2.00 94.06 2.85 30 31.00 50.16 23.754.740.66 543.61 559.67 1.858.638.00 0.702.515.57 4 1.206.27 15.488.00 30.00 972.591.825.092.87 2.223.292.184.932.50 1.321.00 15.26 19 2.20 1.77 75 .67 34.00 31.88 0.90 3.749.00 39.71 30 32.821.11 529.16 1.30 1.312. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.16 55.61 2.119.16 1.00 2.Consumo Prom.45 4 1.67 1.48 12 27.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.71 1.085.00 32.784.16 12. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.16 60.29 2.67 2.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.646.606.27 876.353.79 0.

708.004.49 242.Estimada Total 1.00 11.75 543.00 5.262.00 752.185.009.018.39 13.894.11 135.442.201.413.459.424.76 1.380.83 80.022.00 181.532.85 2.79 2.561.48 334.37 243.00 71.60 425.202.78 1.752.549.033.16 1.00 17.53 4.561.00 105.00 3.443.70 16.00 2.824.18 160.00 4 10.305.392.743.32 546.984.00 612.081.18 1.06 1.172.25 425.994.00 4 2.498.98 Real Grand Total 1.028.552.19 1.746.464.198.81 1.12 6.31 4.708.00 56.759.71 6.00 48.04 367.549.53 4.00 890.017.157.976.359.032.578.189.87 7.00 2.189.00 206.72 120.884.00 97.00 59.963.419.133.931.014.00 4 76 .55 5.00 17.930.00 156.605.186.491.146.07 2.27 34.57 1.00 4 40.29 792.26 108.825.939.026.828.638.68 135.00 125.011.27 2.451.868.00 557.757.823.30 125.53 9.53 79.31 340.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.00 4 30.00 2.00 489.89 294.906.82 1.336.980.785.40 4.98 1.00 4.48 28.007.24 10.00 474.226.00 2.84 7.26 256.201.28 Real Total 1.707.065.254.197.594.96 73.00 4.00 118.700.712.00 1.00 10.652.391.23 655.336.73 4.16 90.00 76.72 4.73 8.142.647.495.132.00 362.06 1.48 1.267.74 75.88 1.146.00 64.791.006.092.17 163.136.31 8.265.813.56 30.679.00 11.24 241.605.89 Total 6 Months 2.700.00 404.520.491.706.740.866.21 90.26 574.00 4.00 16.16 1.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.04 74.982.007.98 251.00 4 902.80 1.994.59 203.29 34.94 1.86 1.06 4.061.00 2.88 4.00 573.88 7.720.00 3.849.00 4 54.00 4.400.188.167.474.00 193.401.00 131.376.

1,607,127.52 12.00 9,602.68 577,312.98 1,144,469.00 50.28 82,885,016.69

1,661,994.01 12.00 9,044.48 543,754.20 1,013,831.00 60.89 81,700,912.80

3,453,350.28 23.00 60,113.15 2,626,201.72 1,221,812.00 63.85 102,666,806.29

3,083,023.01 21.00 34,156.73 1,493,709.65 1,077,237.00 79.91 104,386,545.92

6,536,373.29 44.00 47,134.94 4,119,911.37 2,299,049.00

623.36 23.00 4 148.88 1,221,812.00 4 10,307,696.56 4.98%

71.90
207,053,352.21

77

Net Cash Flow – Proposed Systems
Table 11 - Net Cash Flow - Proposed System Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data. (Gomez and Morera, 2006) and (Perez, 2006) and (Luciano, AAA Revenue, 2006) and (Luciano, Datamatic, 2006) and (Henry, 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Cash Inflows / Benefits and Gains 1 2 3 4 Datamatic $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 Badger/AMCO $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 Badger/Badger $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 ITRON $631,953,559 $636,483,028 $641,012,497 $645,541,965 Year 7 7 $659,130,371 $659,130,371 $659,130,371 $659,130,371 Year 8 8 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 Year 9 9 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 Year 10 10 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 $662,876,649 Total $6,507,423,703 $6,507,423,703 $6,507,423,703 $6,507,423,703

Year 5 5 $650,071,434 $650,071,434 $650,071,434 $650,071,434

Year 6 6 $654,600,902 $654,600,902 $654,600,902 $654,600,902

Cash Outflows / Costs & Expenses Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON

(31,431,832.99) (67,619,023.95) (45,681,909.25) (37,882,642.99)

(21,742,513.79) (64,144,513.79) (25,375,783.22) (23,077,950.00)

(21,450,513.79) (63,852,513.79) (25,083,783.22) (22,785,950.00)

(21,158,513.79) (63,560,513.79) (24,791,783.22) (22,493,950.00)

(20,866,513.79) (63,268,513.79) (24,499,783.22) (22,201,950.00) Sub Total (158,337,185.17) (448,936,376.13) (194,386,878.00) (172,800,612.43)

(20,574,513.79) (62,976,513.79) (24,207,783.22) (21,909,950.00)

(20,282,513.79) (62,684,513.79) (23,915,783.22) (21,617,950.00)

(276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48)

(276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48)

(276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48) (276,756.48)

78

Datamatic

Cash Flow Summary Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow

631,953,559.35 (31,431,832.99) 600,521,726.36 631,953,559.35 (67,619,023.95) 564,334,535.40 631,953,559.35 (45,681,909.25) 586,271,650.10 631,953,559.35 (37,882,642.99) 594,070,916.36

636,483,027.93 (21,742,513.79) 614,740,514.14 636,483,027.93 (64,144,513.79) 572,338,514.14 636,483,027.93 (25,375,783.22) 611,107,244.71 636,483,027.93 (23,077,950.00) 613,405,077.93

641,012,496.52 (21,450,513.79) 619,561,982.73 641,012,496.52 (63,852,513.79) 577,159,982.73 641,012,496.52 (25,083,783.22) 615,928,713.30 641,012,496.52 (22,785,950.00) 618,226,546.52

645,541,965.10 (21,158,513.79) 624,383,451.31 645,541,965.10 (63,560,513.79) 581,981,451.31 645,541,965.10 (24,791,783.22) 620,750,181.88 645,541,965.10 (22,493,950.00) 623,048,015.10

650,071,433.69 (20,866,513.79) 629,204,919.90 650,071,433.69 (63,268,513.79) 586,802,919.90 650,071,433.69 (24,499,783.22) 625,571,650.47 650,071,433.69 (22,201,950.00) 627,869,483.69

654,600,902.27 (20,574,513.79) 634,026,388.48 654,600,902.27 (62,976,513.79) 591,624,388.48 654,600,902.27 (24,207,783.22) 630,393,119.05 654,600,902.27 (21,909,950.00) 632,690,952.27

Badger/AMCO

Badger/Badger

ITRON

659,130,370.86 (20,282,513.79) 638,847,857.07 659,130,370.86 (62,684,513.79) 596,445,857.07 659,130,370.86 (23,915,783.22) 635,214,587.64 659,130,370.86 (21,617,950.00) 37,512,420.86

662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55

662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55

662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55 662,876,649.03 (276,756.48) 662,599,892.55

6,507,423,702.81 (158,337,185.17) 6,349,086,517.64 6,507,423,702.81 (448,936,376.13) 6,058,487,326.68 6,507,423,702.81 (194,386,878.00) 6,313,036,824.81 6,507,423,702.81 (172,800,612.43) 6,334,623,090.38

79

473.63 Year 9 621.089.63 621.79) (15.259.160.99) 605.566.63 (11.070.259.259.160.63 621.29 (136.160.070.63 621.056.79) (15.369.056.070.070.720.160.732.439.63 621.43 6.259.369.20) (4.160.056.20) (11.323.259.056.63 Year 8 621.070.211.63 (15.Net Cash Flow .99) 621.070.732.323.070.369.056.63 Year 10 621.160.259.070.99) 605.160.323.160.439.211.216.211.439.732.00) (26.63 621.720.056.79) (15.99) (11.056.056.99) (11.439. (Luciano.160.070.160.056.00 (11.259.732.089.20) 610.089.056.070.056.99) 605.720.259.63 (11.20) (4.439.160.797.732.160.056.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.00 (11.056.732.63 621.160.20) (11.566.63 621.439.070.259.63 621.99) 605.259.160.056.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .63 621.259.056.79) (15.259.056.473.434.99) (11.29 6.20) (4.160.070.160.439.160.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.070.259.323.797.160.720.63 (15.074.797.63 (15.056.63 621.439.473.00 (11.439.473.64 621.160.160.600.070.056.99) (11.070.089.797.732.99) (11.99) 605.63 (15.Current System Costs Table 12 .160.63 Total 6.160.64 621.99) 605.43 621.056.473.600.64 621. AAA Revenue.160.20) (11.369.056.131.702.070.160.160.259.681.070.439.00 (11.732.323.056.74) (136.20) (4.20) 610.79) (15.74) 621.63 (15.20) 0.720.732.43 621.732.20) 0.056.070.160.732.919.74) 6.732.63 621.160.20) 610.63 621.63 (11.056.600.056.79) (15.43 621.473.20) 0.439.056.720.439.160.64 Year 7 621.20) (110.056.369.259.64 621.20) 0.056.566.20) (4.160.63 (11.842.919.259. 2006) Year 1 Cash Inflows / Benefits and Gains Revenue Total cash inflows Cash Outflows / Costs & Expenses Reading Costs Meters Total cash outflows Cash Flow Summary Total inflows Total outflows Net cash flow ` 621.056.369.056.63 621.29 (11.63 (15.259.63 621.434.259.20) (4.592.64 621.20) 610.323.056.63 621.160.

Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.793.502.52 295.524.72 10.72 10.346.40 41.30 15.06 Year 6 33.592.780.322.72 10.377.290.80) (8.793.412.010. (Gomez and Morera.64 33.911.716.050.217.72 10.217.054.911.89 19.442.80) 10.254.80) (9.30 15.72 10.467.970.971.26) (35.970.69) 81 .716.908.440.716.881.52 295.852.439.793.718.502.716.502.502.768.852.212.060.23) (6.780.381.971.136.845.72 10.502.440.793.780.716.439.845.72 10.100.547.06 28.377.136.502.72 Year 2 15.89 19.40 41.47 24.381.30 Year 3 19.302.780.40 41.971.40 41.716.502.992.439.72 10.716.592.592.793.23) (7.40 Year 9 41.52 295.970.845.502.322.134.80) (9.941.23) (7.852. AAA Revenue.502.352.780.Table 13 .793.644.592.01) (5.502.40 41. 2006) (Luciano.80) (48.016.52 (9.30 15.40 41.23 37.417.00) (6.823.716.72 10.793.80) (48.217.02) (10.911.381.89 19.828.592.908.72 10.177.793.502.502.502. Datamatic.64 33.690.40 Year 10 41.908.314.716.72 (21.910.120.377. 2006) (Perez.845.01) (6.762.971.970.47 24.06 28.80) (48.793.592.314.47 24.01) Year 7 37.592.426.136.23 37.43) (312.23) (7.780.793.96) (30.23 Year 8 41.217.780.050.911.936.381.592.823.050.47 Year 5 28.314.80) (47.40 41.64 33.40 Total 295.750.242.59) (12.050. 2006) (Luciano.823.592.06 28.502.89 Year 4 24.72 10.793.716.852.254.592.176.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.908.00) (52.322.780.80) (47.322.72 10.440.59) (51.40 41.443.780.01) (5.823. 2006) (Henry.793.704.Incremental Cash Flow .638.377.793.439.40 41.440.23 37.39) (57.01) (5.502.26) (22.845.470.217.592.23) (6.536.72 10.780.80) (9.179.793.136.314.716.72 10.793.716.614.592.80) (9.502. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.793.050.

23) 5.716.74) 28.823.422.010.80) (33.029.440.80) 23.21 37.340.911.780.841.01) 17.412.64 (8.28) 15.417.217.12 41.72 (22.40 10.96) (41.426.72 52.095.845.502.302.439.89 (7.176.852.020.06 (47.908.917.322.127.314.30 (48.322.638.47 (5.716.12 41.992.095.911.01) 12.80) 9.716.306.72 52.095.50) 15.470.389.179.793.80) (23.217.69) 259.443.381. (Gomez and Morera.23) 19.536.592.12 41.439.217.793.596.510.100.47 (7.64 (47.502.80) (28.016.510.592.970.592.12 41.095.136.440.908.502.06 (5.72 52.502.25 24.54) 10.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 .28) 10.67 24.30 (7.940.095.510.23) 24.09 19.936.597.845.355.40 10.691.852. 2006) (Henry.716.971.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .72 52.592.935.40 10.149.80) (18.851.793.793.592.780.66 19.064.40 10.26) (19.09 295.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.845.442.314.385.50 15.059. 2006) (Luciano.780.502.64 37.971.502.502.88 41.136.26 28.52 (57.72 52.560.845.858.23 (51.971.716.592.716.510.716.510.643.502.780.72 52.40 10. Datamatic.64 (5.716.36) 37.881.510.592.793.26 295.23 (12.322.381.872.510.177.01) 22.506.80) 18.716.050.448.212.23) 10.377.40 10.793.23 (9.804.136.693.758.704.80) (14.050.050.793.823.72 52.43) 274.40 10.322.41 33.440.12 24.510.80) 13.970.510.738.623.40 10.823.01) 26.750.793.16) 33.87) 295.790.684.84 33.72 (52.05 33.788.828. 2006) D Incremental Cash Flow Summary Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow 37.12 41.72 (15.26) 238.095.64 (6.47 (48.326.793.89 (48.095.327.242.40 10.780.12 41.83 28.440.910.793.911.91) 19.12 41.644.484.852.290.24) 10.29 41.970.12 41.050.193.381.52 (35.941.716.39) (16.690.33) 24.72 52.941.592.08 15.198.908.908.72 52.793.716. AAA Revenue.502. 2006) (Luciano.89 (9.120.054.46 295.52 (312.793.314.160.852.439.405.911.502.377.502.47 (9.780.780.12 41.72 52.510.970.780.12 19.592.502.823.095.780.136.768.958.23) 15.614.43 10.060.672.592.095.663.217.403.208.00) (5.40 10.59) 28.124.254.970.83 28.718.30 (6.02) 25.134.592.06 (9.502.80) 28.628.762.050.716.00) (11.095.793.222.793.381.845.346.547.649.971.095.59) (13.439.23 (10.793.592.30 (9.06 (6.502. 2006) (Perez.921.793.524.72 (30.502.780.40 10.80) 27.40 10.381.510.407.190.377.314.217.809.386.795.89 (6.386.377.72 52.510.673.01) 7.72 52.12 82 .502.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.352.754.659.467.254.52 (21.095.095.

30 ($48.027.50 $13.852.908.46) Year 2 $15.362.061.72 ($52.322.911.597.917.89 ($48.54) Year 1 $10.377.853.31 Year 3 $19.964.198.24) Year 1 $10.89 $25.252.96) ($41.26 Cumulative Incremental CF Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Cumulative Incremental CF Badger/Badger Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Cumulative Incremental CF ITRON Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Cumulative Incremental CF ($5.971.33) $59.176.340.652.01) $17.448.381.385.780.23) $15.502.484.060.793. 2006) (Henry.28) Year 1 $10.381.222.673.502. (Gomez and Morera.407.050.793.99) $8.30 ($9.386.593.757.704.780.25 (145.691.47 $28.72 $15.403.00) ($6.80) ($5.407.100.810.851.80) ($28.99 Year 4 $24.971.752.45 Year 4 $24.83 ($19.377. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.217.214.01) $22.290.80) ($18.780.649.302.852.673.050.780.72 ($22.80) ($6.30 ($7.780.67 $23.66 (127.379.502.74) ($41.06 ($6.442.659.327.911.25 Year 5 $28.822.322.71) Year 5 $28.97) Year 4 $24.88 $11.780.788.36 $48.54) ($74.911.41 83 .788.649.066.65) Year 3 $19.74) Year 2 $15.439.852.018.208.28) ($3.050.28 Year 5 $28.780.06 ($9.992.858.217.05 ($11.852.127.938.381.560.439.029.01) $12.793.050.72 ($30.506.439.412.738.385.190.29 ($3.08 (103.120.663.638.448.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.28) $9.426.322.597.377.984.841.936.762.91) $36.80) Year 3 $19.809.644.30 $19.23) $19.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.718.50) $17.326.217.22 Year 2 $15.976. 2006) (Perez.541.869.47 ($9.352.596.89 ($7.971.89 $24.054.020.47 ($7.910.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .377.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.381.389.821.502.780.327.911. 2006) (Luciano. AAA Revenue.198.80) ($33.597.684.00) ($11.80) ($5.908.908.663. Datamatic.810.010.921.381.01) $7.176.28) ($14.346.828.23) $5.793.24) $3. 2006) (Luciano.217.421.179.09 $18.80) ($23.26) ($19.23) $10.495.908.872.89 ($9.754.46 $31.971.47 ($48.06 ($47.160.149.326.242.261.569.439.322.

52 ($57.12 $121.52 ($35.177.970.40 $10.12 $259.72 $52.059.510.73 Year 7 $37.895.793.804.716.64 $116.845.793.440.12 $207.134.095.72 $52.254.12 $133.136.09 Total $295.881.793.845.69) $259.193.693.095.59) ($13.40 $10.355.592.095.716.780.23 ($10.64 ($8.405.970.87) Year 10 $41.84 $88.970.823.23 Year 7 $37.845.970.614.510.690.355.510.623.095.095.510.23 ($9.095.72 $52.52 ($21.09 Year 10 $41.195.12 $185.12 $221.716.793.716.314.314.385.80) $28.617.72 $52.01) $26.90 Year 7 $37.592.503.716.536.716.440.921.72 $52.99) Year 9 $41.23 ($12.502.758.64 ($6.845.40 $10.941.823.85 Year 8 $41.050.958.40 $10.510.14 Year 9 $41.510.502.12 ($68.59) $28.628.36) $173.41 $55.592.716.306.510.989.090.97 Year 9 $41.39 ($16.405.40 $10.40 $10.502.72 $52.592.124.095.510.502.592.470.407.64 ($47.793.440.643.100.21 $80.095.02) $25.40 $10.592.26 Total $295.136.136.72 $52.411.16) $160.716.04 Year 7 $37.825.592.80) $27.40 $10.524.254.40 $10.47 Year 8 $41.417.314.502.793.970.12 $169.43) $274.26) $238.26 Year 10 $41.941.40 $10.050.335.793.217.72 $52.768.502.845.502.823.941.193.793.823.212.386.467.547.750.724.440.510.12 $238.502.23) $24.716.83 Total $295.510.502.12 $154.510.845.69 Year 6 $33.87) Total $295.02 Year 8 $41.71 Year 10 $41.080149.016.09 Year 6 $33.11 Year 8 $41.672.83 84 .Year 6 $33.510.63 $74.716.899.793.804.502.592.095.40 $10.117.59 Year 9 $41.958.64 ($5.095.863.52 $312.592.213.793.940.095.790.87 Year 6 $33.793.693.502.998.780.700.136.40 $10.592.592.793.386.875.716.72 $52.12 $274.703.12 ($16.041.935.716.673.768.443.80) ($14.095.095.72 $52.598.064.290.23 ($51.592.502.72 $52.72 $52.314.431.795.422.43 $102.

788) N/A Year 1 $10.950470057 Year 4 $24.644.781) ($23.380 6.060.53199599 Year 3 $19.908 $28.242.291) ($41.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data. AAA Revenue.326.781) ($33.385.793.659 $18.852.412.215) ($160.793.536.191 $13.322.050) $19.781) ($28.971 $19.050) $5.53199599 Year 1 $10.100) ($6.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.781) ($6.327 Year 6 $33.440.341) $36.971 ($48.010. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.386.322.236658937 ($14.781) ($18.381.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.134.381.050) $24.352.381.597) 1.936.663.080.050) $10.390 ($127.971 ($9.598) Years Year 2 $15.872) $59. 2006) (Perez.704.984.793.440.503 ($30.908 ($9.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.738.767.911.208.821.404) Year 6 $33.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.768.752) Years ($3.917.363) 3.618 85 .858 ($145.128 $23.061.597) $9.029.908 ($48.672.027.700.120.781) ($5.385.440 $24.302.841.Payback Period Table 16 .781) ($5.440 ($48.198.846 ($8.663.593 Years Year 2 $15.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.448.846 ($47.176) ($19.377 $33.381.306.117.976 $88.851.066.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.788) $3.503 ($52. Datamatic.560. 2006) (Luciano.853.020.852.822 $55.176.236658937 $11.674) 3.095. (Gomez and Morera.322.377 ($47. 2006) (Henry.440.809) $17.252 1.448.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.160835902 $31.781) ($14.911.911.377 ($9.198.327.495 6.810.674) ($74.484.921 ($103.781) ($5.852.503 $15.718.992.179. 2006) (Luciano.050) $15.596 $28.440 ($9.426.828.

467.095 Year 9 $41.793.716.217) $7.442.255) ($13.160 Year 6 $33.716.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.793.386 $116.440 ($7.989.649.050 Year 7 $37.212.793.510.823.503 Year 9 $41.405.750) $274.758.217) $12.223 Year 4 $24.793.869.217) $26.970.503 $52.101 $169.314 ($51.941) ($16.995) ($68.638.970.724.805) ($173.385.407) Year 2 $15.291 $274.095 Year 9 $41.510.510.970.381.592 $10.643443217 $48.503 Total $295.503 Year 10 $41.421 $74.846 ($6.910) ($11.503 $52.716.653) Years $8.346.716.322.908 ($7.823.314 ($12.510.716.217) $22.060 Year 8 $41.716.405.016.823.503 $52.377 ($6.018.470.592 $10.592 $10.137 ($57.716.911.443) 86 .614.510.852.940) Year 8 $41.895.503 $52.592 $10.503 ($22.417.592 $10.703.541.137 ($312.793.510.196 $221.793.386 Year 7 $37.503 $52.503 $52.592 $10.149.327.137 ($21.292628695 ($3.716.805) Year 7 $37.217) $17.213.524) Year 8 $41.193.900) ($16.506.592 $10.592 $10.090) ($121.643.407) 2.875.970.845.649.314 ($9.255) $28.292628695 $25.054.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.193.261 6.762.964.971 ($7.592 $10.754 Year 3 $19.691 Year 5 $28.095 Year 10 $41.793.684.793.095 Year 10 $41.095 Total $295.095 Total $295.440.793.716.793.570 2.

095 $238.592 $10.623 Year 8 $41.095 Year 10 $41.510.422.864 $259.790 $52.503 $52.941.970.510.673 $154.793.095 $52.355.769 $207.431.335.825.$25.095 Year 9 $41.921.178) $259.823.355.510.503 $185.691) $27.503 $52.510.408 $133.716.592 $10.503 $52.547.693 Year 7 $37.124.314 ($10.959 87 .793.716.598 $238.845.592 $10.095 Total $295.137 ($35.510.959 $102.510.693 $80.941.793.716.095 $52.881.411.

793.302.781) Simple ROI.592 $10.823.314 ($9.793.793.010.908 $28. (Luciano.716.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))).970.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.750) Year 6 $33.100) ($6.503 Year 10 $41.440 $24.440.911.503 Year 9 $41.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13)))."N/A") 88 .2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0.781) ($6."N/A") Year 7 $37.971 $19.781) Simple ROI.134.592 $10.716.Return on Investment . Datamatic.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.852.381.781) ($5.781) ($5.322."N/A") Simple ROI.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))).426.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.992.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).417.503 Total $295.846 ($5. 7 years: 217. 3 years: 62.137 ($21."N/A") Simple ROI.255) Year 8 $41.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0.212. 10 years: 1281. 2006) (Luciano.793. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.718.592 $10.Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data.503 $15. AAA Revenue.716. 5 years: 151.

255) Year 8 $41. 5 years: -59.314 ($51.793.503 Year 9 $41.716.852."N/A") Simple ROI.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).377 Total incremental outflows ($52.781) Simple ROI.823. 2006) (Perez.120..291) ($48. 3 years: -69.Return on Investment . (Gomez and Morera.016.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0.781) Simple ROI.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).970."N/A") Simple ROI.322.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0.592 $10.536.793. 7 years: -50.503 Year 10 $41.592 $10.793.846 ($47. 10 years: -5.440 $24.Badger/AMCO Table 18 .704. 2006) (Luciano.503 $15.503 Total $295.5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.971 $19.137 ($312.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0."N/A") 89 .941) Year 6 $33.381.592 $10.911. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))).716. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10. AAA Revenue.Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc.793.412.828.716.781) ($47.908 $28."N/A") Year 7 $37.614.179.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).781) ($48.440.781) ($48.

936.644.443) Year 6 $33.592 $10.Badger/Badger Table 19 .503 Total $295.050) ($9.467.845. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.716.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0."N/A") Year 7 $37. 3 years: 105.314 ($12. 10 years: 585. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.503 Year 9 $41.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).503 $15.060.911.823.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0. AAA Revenue.137 ($57.322."N/A") 90 .(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))). 5 years: 160."N/A") Simple ROI.793.716.793.Return on Investment .971 $19.050) Simple ROI.592 $10.7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.852.592 $10.846 ($8.524) Year 8 $41. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.768.050) Simple ROI.793.050) ($9.352."N/A") Simple ROI.440 $24.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).716.381.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.176) ($9.242.440.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))). 7 years: 313.503 Year 10 $41.050) ($9.377 Total incremental outflows ($30.908 $28.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.970.793.

217) ($7.881.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.793.Return on Investment .592 $10.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).054.762.503 Year 9 $41.716. 10 years: 1077.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).970.592 $10.440.217) Year 7 $37. 2006) (Perez.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0. (Luciano.381.852.910) ($7.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))).971 $19."N/A") Year 6 $33. 5 years: 245.178) Simple ROI.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.638.346.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))). 3 years: 170.440 $24.314 ($10.137 ($35.716."N/A") 91 . AAA Revenue.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 . 7 years: 475.503 $15. 2006) (Henry.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON.442.503 Total $295.592 $10.470.823.716.793.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.217) ($7.908 $28.377 Total incremental outflows ($22.217) Simple ROI.547. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.911.793.503 Year 10 $41.217) ($6.793."N/A") Simple ROI.846 ($6.691) Year 8 $41.322."N/A") Simple ROI.

095. 2006) (Luciano. Datamatic.9% #N/A Year 6 26.872) Year 5 (18.381.020.208.128 23.7% #N/A Year 6 24.851.306.921 Year 3 10.935) Year 1 (41.448. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.597) 9.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7.672.4% #N/A Year 6 (14. 2006) (Perez.858 Year 5 19.506. (Gomez and Morera.841.663.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.754 Year 3 12.629 Year 1 (11.691 Year 5 22.738.970.684.596 28. 2006) (Luciano.809) Year 3 (28.385.386. 2006) (Henry.795 Year 1 (19.327.404) -1.341) Year 4 (23.390 Year 4 15.560.198.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.659 18.917.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.3% 92 .160 105.649.223 Year 4 17.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.149.191 13.029.327 64.484. AAA Revenue.

Year 7 28.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 10 52.510.095 Year 10 52.510.510.693 Year 7 27.095 Year 9 52.510.510.940 Year 8 52.095 Year 9 52.623 Year 8 52.095 Year 10 52.643.758.790 Year 8 52.510.510.060 Year 8 52.355.095 Total 274.193.510.095 Total 259.510.510.386 Year 7 13.422.510.805) Year 7 25.095 Total 238.959 93 .095 Year 9 52.510.095 Total (16.095 Year 9 52.405.941.124.

407) 4.198.448.443 12.029.191 13.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.319.005.167 14.583) Year 1 (11.907.725.539) Year 5 19.752.028 Year 3 (28.788) 7.369.272) (21.148 17.801) Year 1 (19.351.564.484.623.354) Year 4 15.107. 2006) (Henry.044.467) (39.612) 4.543.746.341) 13.839 (4.970.001 7.381.424.575.934.821 Year 5 (18.327.457.265.112 15.701 14.138) Year 3 10.037 9.327 (9.998) 7.023 9.597) 9.588. 2006) (Luciano.669.647 Year 4 17.110 11.752.095.735 Year 5 22.404) 18.661.506.746.020.223 10.390 (17.659 18.505.858 (12.064 Year 3 12.824) Year 2 5.669.818.696 Year 6 (14. 2006) (Perez.841.672.917.886 16.558 Year 2 (33.399.306.179.703 10.691 12.807) (16.596 28.213.851.412.274) 6.590.298 Year 2 7.087 17.872) 15.674) (28.582.396.293.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4.386.444) (27.595 12. AAA Revenue.149.067. Datamatic.766.342 Year 4 (23.219) (8.459.684.454.724 12.326.649.921 (22.452.663. (Gomez and Morera.927.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .023 94 .665) Year 6 24.433.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.835.754 8.319.854.865 (18.385. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.969) (11.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.046 13.809) 10.738.956.668) Year 1 (41.680.128 23.208.610 Year 6 26.560. 2006) (Luciano.747.714 10.160 16.638 (11.370) 6.

196.510.033 Year 8 52.106 NPV 152.095 32.961 Year 7 27.095 32.959 NPV 162.728.638 34.255.196.027.805) NPV (34.604.604.033 Year 9 52.196.471.518 16.196.638 34.196.196.510.638 34.510.095 32.703.095 32.181.941.196.604.510.332.374 Year 8 52.647 NPV 182.638 34.638 34.033 Year 9 52.196.536) Total 238.693 NPV 145.638 34.355.422.881.701.510.033 Total 274.510.510.095 32.604.386 NPV 173.643.510.196.033 Year 8 52.079) NPV (35.492 18.922 Total (16.033 Year 10 52.510.604.033 Year 10 52.095 32.600.047 Year 7 13.193.095 32.623 17.638 34.095 32.095 32.638 34.767.604.814) (8.Year 7 28.858.033 Year 10 52.033 Year 10 52.196.638 34.510.033 Year 8 52.604.292 17.940 (8.033 Year 9 52.510.790 15.758.817 95 .060 17.095 32.638 34.196.196.831 Total 259.361.313) Year 7 25.604.604.040.604.033 Year 9 52.552 NPV 170.604.638 34.638 34.095 32.405.510.124.856.885.604.095 32.

000.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000 $50.000.000.000 $30.000.000) ($40.000 $10.000.000.000) ($20.000.000.000 $20.000 $0 ($10.000) ($30.000.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.000.000) ($50.000 $40.

00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.000.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .00 $0.000.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.00 ($100.00 $200.000.00) ($200.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00) ($150.00 $150.00) Years Figure 24 .000.00 $250.00 $100.000.000.000.

000.000.000.000.000.00) ($100.000.00 ($50.000.000.00) ($200.000.000.000.000.00 $50.00 $200.000.00 $0.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.00 $250.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .00 $100.00) ($150.000.000.000.000.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .000.000.000.00 $150.

In 2004 the government ended the privatization of the company which was referred to as “a mess” by the new president. they began looking into improving their billing and data storage system in order to maintain better records of meter information and customer records.Appendix J: Sponsor Description The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority (PRASA). currently a government run entity. The company has a series of directors that are in charge of their respective divisions that report directly to the president. The four main divisions within PRASA are: Customer Service. After this re-acquisition. at different times. a year after the change over. PRASA currently employs 4. This technology will allow them to read meters from a distance and in greater numbers. personal communication. they began an effort to replace all meters on the island within 7 years. 2005). Infrastructure. In 2005. to run the organization. Finance and Operations. is in charge of the water supply on the island of Puerto Rico (McPhaul. Since its inception in the 1940s until the mid 1990’s it was a government run company. they started researching AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) technology. West. 99 . 2/10/2006). PRASA launched several programs to improve their current situation. The authority has a president/CEO that is selected by a board of directors. The Authority is now a public corporation that is 100% governmentally controlled. receiving all of its funding from water service revenue (Andres Garcia. East.500 employees who are spread across the company’s 5 regions: North. causing it to acquire massive amounts of debt towards the end of their contracts. and Metro. From the mid 90’s to 2004. Finally. The companies did little for the authority. South. the government contracted two private companies. At the same time.

Water). (Andres Garcia. PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants. the water rates increased by 68%. 6. personal communication.3 million clients and 1. 2/10/2006) In October 2005. 1. 1. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. and in July of 2006.000.600 Pumping Stations. 2006. 1. 60 waste water treatment plants. personal communication.000.200 km of water lines. (Andres Garcia.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700.3 million water meters. government or independent. 100 . that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco. there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates.000 km of sewer lines.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful