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

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

........... viii Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................2 Evaluation of Information System .....3................................1 Flow Meter Importance.........................................2............... 21 3...............1 Chapter 2: Background............................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ................................................ 23 3.................2...............2 Other Meter Replacements ........................................................................................................................3..................................................................................3....................................................... 4 2.. iii Table of Contents .......................... 17 2.............................................................................................. 20 3..........................1 Customer Survey..............2 Island Considerations........... 23 3....1...................................2 Iterative Drafting of Plan .............................3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan.........................1................................... 37 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations . 20 3................3.1 Flow Meters ........................................................ 9 2.................................2 Interview Directors of PRASA Replacement Plan .............................................................................. 27 4.............................................2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations ........ 24 3...................................................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology...............3 Compare the Current Plan to Plans from Other Locations .................................... 37 4................ 20 3.................................1............................... 17 Chapter 3: Methodology................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2....4 2.3 PRASA...... 27 4.......................................1..................................Table of Contents Abstract.... 24 3.....................................2 Director Interviews ...................... i Authorship ................................3 Plan Comparisons ........ 16 2............................................................................................................................2 Evaluation of Current Information System .............................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement....2............................................................................................1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan ...........................1..........3 Water Meter Management ... 24 3............................................................................... 34 4........................................................................................................................................... 22 3............. 31 4.. 16 2....3 Puerto Rico’s Water System .............................................................................. 25 Chapter 4: Results and Data Analysis ...................................... 15 2............. iv Table of Figures.. vii Executive Summary ..................................................................................1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans..................................................................................................................................1 Interview with System Administrators ........2...................................................................................................................................3...........................1.............................1 Customer Survey.......................................................... 32 4.... vi Table of Tables ..............................2 Meter Replacement Considerations ...1 Water Resources ...1.............................1......................................................................1.....................1 Interview with Administrators ...................................... 39 iv ........... 27 4...........................................................1 General Replacement Considerations ...............................................2........................................................................................................................................................ 4 2......................4 Cost-Benefit Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 7 2..............................1.................................................................................................................... 7 2.......

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

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

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

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

PRASA’s goal of replacing 200. As PRASA continues to replace meters. 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. but are not installed with the necessary hardware: a radio transmitter. We recommend that they continue with the replacement and evaluate the relative success at the end of the year. we performed a cost-benefit analysis comparing present meters to new technology alternatives. The other systems analyzed were either too expensive or required a larger investment of time and money.6 Million.3 million meter replacements in 7 years.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. the number of meters without AMR technology will grow. AMR will allow PRASA to read a larger quantity of meters in a shorter period of time while saving money on reading costs. This provides PRASA with AMR technology they trust while keeping their current meter technology. 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. the meters installed by PRASA are capable of supporting AMR technology.000 meters this year would allow them to complete all 1. 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. In light of this. Currently. AMR technology will enable fewer employees to take more readings than the current system allows. Finally. Those employees not participating in the meter reading can be used for a meter ix .

regions could accurately predict whether the current replacement timeline needs adjustment. This would have involved an inspection and administrator interviews to gain an understanding of the process and possible improvements. These recommendations will help PRASA to improve their replacement effort and meter management while also reducing the Authority’s costs. An evaluation of PRASA’s current information system was originally planned. Once enough data are gathered. the PRASA data center had already collected bids for a new system and is currently in the process of analyzing them. meaning that meters can be replaced more economically. each region would select enough meters to represent the health of the system. the database can be queried to identify meters due for replacement. and it was unnecessary for us to proceed with the investigation. However. Once a replacement interval is established. They plan to finish the upgrade process in 3 years. While not every meter can be tested. It was our opinion that they had the situation under control.testing program. Testing allows meter life to be calculated instead of estimated. Through random sampling or other such methods. representative samples could be tested every few years. 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. and 64% indicated their preferred method of notification was postal mail. The affected customer can then be notified of an impending meter change and interruption of service via an insert in the monthly bill. The opinions of the customers are very important to PRASA. x . 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.

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

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

current venture. 3 . 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. These recommendations will enable the company to conserve money that would normally be spent on inefficient meter reading and replacement procedures. 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. along with any future replacement. PRASA should locate all missing or buried meters.

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

3). This is done by a reader looking at the meter itself and recording the number it displays. When these surroundings are in a sewer below busy roads. maintenance and even whether the meter is read or estimated. Horsman & Hanson. This is an especially important issue for towns that purchase their water from neighboring towns. 2004.1). The economic effects of incorrect billing can be significant (Allender. then discrepancies between how much water went out and how much water was paid for can indicate leaks or problems in the delivery system. In some areas. Armed with this knowledge. then flow meters can indicate something more (Satterfield. inaccurate flow meters have resulted in a loss of up to $200. In order for this kind of billing to be possible. 1996. 2002. The display 5 . p. p. functioning flow meters are necessary. If the water meter is accurate. Bhardwaj.which charges for the specific amount of water used.60). Water meters may also be used to find leaks in a system (Shea. If a town pays for a certain amount of water from another town and then does not make all of that money back. the result can be a cave in. it is possible for a leak in a pipe to erode the surroundings of the pipe. revenue is lost. as opposed to flat fee billing has been said to encourage water conservation. If the amount of water being sent out is equal to the amount of water being billed for. p. Moreover. Bhardwaj. They can report the water usage for a community. The meter reading technique can affect accuracy. The first kind of reading is manual reading (Satterfield.2 Meter Reading Techniques and Considerations Choosing how to read the meters is almost as important as choosing the meter itself. 2. 2004.000 a year in water bills. Optimum). causing problems if the water department does not generate enough money to sustain the facilities needed to keep water flowing to its customers. the authorities can monitor water consumption and better judge current and future water needs.1.

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

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

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

9 . personal communication. so less money is spent each year and there are no financial problems. 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. can be adapted to work in Puerto Rico.age. coupled with their growing gaming industry forced Atlantic City to draw up a plan to replace their water meters. 2. however. 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. Additionally. This is the strategy used by a small town. 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. Practices and methods used here may not directly fit the needs of a larger region like Puerto Rico. This will be an indication of when another meter replacement cycle should begin. An analysis of their remaining life should be done. electronic meter readers were acquired to eliminate the need for manual entry. This.2. but could be adapted to work. would not work with so many water meters. Atlantic City was facing a water meter problem around 15 years ago (McLees. Meter readings would be downloaded into hand-held devices and uploaded to a central computer for processing. Fewer meters will fail at the same time. 1993. for example. 2/9/2006). Anatomy). Randomly selecting the meters to be replaced.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. Testing the meters a while after replacement. The last thing is to go back and look at the meters that were replaced at the beginning of the process (Deming.

Meter Replacement). a significant amount of water and revenue. 1996. At the same time. 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. Like Atlantic City. causing customer complaints. Their aging meters served about 20.000 different clients. The new system resulted in fewer customer complaints due to accurate meter readings (Jackson. The failing meters led to inaccurate measurements. 1996. Aging Meters). Meter replacements were rare. average billable water readings jumped from 3. and water is an important resource for sustaining this kind growth. The company they hired to do this combined their work force with that of the town to increase progress (Jackson. so a boost in available personnel. In the end. is possible if Puerto Rico changes to automatic meter reading.The time that the already installed meters saved in meter reading time helped to expedite the replacement process (McLees. Research). similar to the one experienced by Atlantic City. Pontiac. was in a similar situation (Jackson.05 billion to 3. Michigan. Meters in Puerto Rico are read by hand. they were purchasing water from another city. Research). Benefits). Anatomy). and the 10 . Puerto Rico is growing with an established tourism industry. meters in yards with vicious dogs and other dangers (Jackson. 1996. 1996. only for new houses or completely broken meters. Estimating meter readings can result in an overcharge with supporting data. There was also a problem with fenced in meters.65 billion gallons. The city was unable to collect enough revenue from the customers to cover the costs of the purchased water. the project was 90% complete within 10 months. Although estimated that the project would be completed within 2 years. 1996. 1993. Their primary concerns were the financial and technological aspects of the new meters (Jackson. To alleviate this problem. they decided to use radio frequency meters. They could read more data faster due to the radio signals.

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

Conclusion). These fixes are expected to bring average savings of $255 million over the next 15 years (City of Toronto. 2002. 2002. In the Toronto area. Additionally. to radio meters. estimated meter readings will disappear due to the new meter technology. There are too many meters for each one to be read every billing period. the surrounding areas are to have anywhere from 25. 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. It was also recommended that all 8. then its testing schedule is changed to that of the next size. Like Toronto.000 the first year and 10. 3/1/2006). the larger diameter a meter has. including non metered accounts. The low flow meters are to be replaced in groups of 20. Starting in year 2 and going to year 8.500 nonmetered accounts be upgraded to metered accounts over the next four years. the high volume meters are to be replaced over the course of two years. Personal Communication. The proposal gives a tentative plan for an eight year replacement program. Purpose). some readings are estimated. they continued to check for meters that 12 . Personal Communication. Currently. Meters that are 5/8". If a meter begins to show usage patterns of a meter the next size up. This allowed employees to collect more data faster and streamline the billing process. it was determined that there were several things Toronto could do to improve its water meter infrastructure (City of Toronto. This will result in a more satisfied customer base.000 meters replaced in a year. the more frequently it is tested. Replacements in Tampa. The first was to upgrade all accounts. Due to this. Puerto Rico hopes to eliminate the need for estimated billing by installing better meter reading technology. Florida follow a strict schedule of testing and replacement (Robert Lauria. doing 5. 3/4" and 1" are all replaced every 10 years. After many meters were replaced due to size reasons.000 to 63. there is an issue with estimated billing in Puerto Rico.000 the second.000 over the next four years. Beyond 1”.In the end. 3/1/2006).

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

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

they cannot be considered individual pieces. An important thing to keep in mind is that each meter is part of a larger network. Short term priority replacement solves the issue of price inequality but was deemed to require too much money and resources (Henry Chen. Personal Communication. 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. Countless other states and counties are beginning to replace antiquated water meters in the same fashion. Encompassing All Aspects). turning more and more on electronic or wireless meter reading protocols to expedite the reading process.2. 2. Long term priority replacement was their final choice. that same problem might be happening somewhere else. 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. 15 . so a compromise was made in order to meet the resource requirements and still solve the problem in an adequate amount of time. 3/26/2006). solving their problem as quickly as possible. The process Seattle went through is a good example of weighing available resources against desired outcomes and making a compromise. However. However. 2000. 3/26/2006). it was not possible due to the money and resources necessary. something that could happen with short term and long term priority replacement (Henry Chen. This is something that Puerto Rico may have to consider the needs of the customer and the water authority.3 Water Meter Management Knowledge of how to maintain so many meters is crucial to keeping the system working (Schlenger. If one meter is having a problem. Personal Communication. The second option is the most desirable method.Testing until failure reduces the risk of replacing a meter with life left on it.

In the case of Anne Arundel County.2 and 183. In addition to this. Optimum). Each city needs to look at its own situation and determine which method will save it more money in the long run.25 per meter per year. p. industrial and tourist facilities make up the bulk of the remaining percent with thermoelectric coming in at the lowest percent. The loss of money due to unbilled water increases each year the aging meter is not dealt with. Finally. The two highest uses of water are domestic and unaccounted for (leaky pipes and illegal connections) at 171. being an island presents water concerns of its own. 16 . but not cost effective for electrical meters (Jackson. 2.Meter maintenance is another thing to consider. Commercial. 2004. or the meter is so cheap that replacing it is more cost-efficient. Some meters are too expensive to be repaired and must be replaced instead. p.9 million gallons of water per day (Ortiz-Zayas. 1996. the loss of revenue due to meter replacement will be a constant. Maryland. old meters were costing up to $13.1). In general. Replacing a meter too late will result in a loss of billed water. This section will talk about Puerto Rico’s water system. A city needs to maintain a delicate balance between replacement and economics (Allender. 1996. the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority has an important history that must be examined to understand the current state of the water system. Despite being a small island.1 Water Resources Puerto Rico uses around 430.3 Puerto Rico’s Water System Puerto Rico has a unique water system. It is a possibility for towns that use mechanical meters.393).3 MGD respectively. they have a very complex water distribution system. their island concerns and the history of PRASA. 2.3. Replacing a meter too early will result in a loss of time when that meter would still be good.

This does not mean there are not better solutions that could save them money in the long run. p. 2000. Puerto Rico is often plagued with water shortages and droughts.3.3. 2.3). but right now the meters they get are relatively inexpensive. Most islands. PRASA checks the entire island by reading each meter by hand. Even for the cities that have a similar population. 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. dams and desalination plants to supplement and maintain the water supplies (Pigram.3 PRASA PRASA is the company that handles the water needs of nearly the entire island. while the natural terrain on the island can block some storms from reaching parts of the island and replenishing natural aquifers.Puerto Rico has many renewable natural water resources along with aqueducts. should and do monitor their water supply. making the logistics of a meter replacement harder than the logistics for a city with a concentrated population. 2/3/2006). The population of Puerto Rico is scattered around the island. personal communication. Despite this. High tides can also cause salt water to contaminate the underground water supplies of coastal areas. 2000. 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. 2. Currently. Currently.75 per meter (Andres Garcia. their people are concentrated in one area. p. Hurricanes can devastate infrastructure. 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. Puerto Rico included.3).

11). (McPhaul. Ondeo (Blasor. When Vivendi’s contract was up for renewal in 2002.2 million for violating EPA standards and they had not collected $165 million in bills. 2/3/2006). p.181 individual counts of faults and deficiencies in maintenance and administration. Their information system stores meter information as well as billing history and customer information. the government had privatized the Puerto Rican water system to two different companies. Vivendi. This means that PRASA does not have to contact the customers to replace or read their water meters. Ondeo was not much better than Vivendi. 2002. 2004. In 1999 the company deficit was around $241 million. 2002. Aside from service problems.1). p. Ownership of the PRASA has changed hands several times in past years. 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. Vivendi started to show signs of weakness quickly (Pucas. the EPA fined them $6. personal communication. 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. The first company. government controlled land (Andres Garcia. did an unsatisfactory job running the water system. 2005) By 2004. On top of this. which rose to $695 million in 2001. the company was having financial problems as well (Pucas.11). Ondeo and Vivendi.plan is to replace meters on a set schedule or locate failed or failing meters during billing rounds and replace them accordingly. Complaints built up until 2001 when there were a documented 3. 18 . One major advantage that Puerto Rico has over other cities and towns is that most of their water meters are located on public. During these times of drought. Puerto Rico decided to contract with a different provider. Families that did not carry water had to stretch their budgets by buying bottled water. allowing facilities to remain in disrepair and asking for more and more money to do their work.

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. Ondeo said they had been misinformed as to the status of the system and the $93 million was necessary to maintain functionality. According to the new president of PRASA the company was “a total mess” when they took over from Ondeo (McPhaul. 2005.1). It is also reflected in the EPA’s quote. information is gathered on meters that may fail in the future. the government stepped in and reclaimed control of PRASA. At this point. 2003. This is a big factor in the water meter problems Puerto Rico is currently having.2 billion as of June. It is this as well as the increasing numbers of failing water meters that sparked PRASA into requesting assistance with these issues. Relations between the government and Ondeo were not on stable ground towards the end. Finally. all residential meters are replaced every ten years and their larger meters every five years.” PRASA now has a replacement plan. their plan is not as robust as it should be. Regardless of this.achieving a deficit of $1. The only other stipulation is that all meters replaced must be ready to accept Automatic Meter Reading technology. Currently. 19 . Flow meters are essential to any water distribution system. Almost all areas that have water meters have a replacement plan to ensure that their meters are functioning correctly. p. They help with customer billing as well as system maintenance and monitoring. “Preventive maintenance at PRASA doesn’t exist at all. In the case of Puerto Rico. but it is not obvious as to whether this information is used. any meter found to be ineffective is replaced immediately. they cited the fact that an extra $93 million was requested by Ondeo for the continuation of their services.

3. we chose to use Likert Scales on our questionnaire. The questionnaire 20 . In 2006. At the same time. 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.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. Considering the number and types of questions we wanted answered. the organization planed to replace 200. Lastly. 318). 2006. we evaluated their current replacement effort in order to understand the state of the system. we looked at their information system to see if there were any changes or upgrades that could be made to improve the system.1 Evaluation of Meter Replacement Plan In 2005.000.1 Customer Survey Our first method for evaluating the replacement plan was to survey a sample of PRASA’s customer base. This chapter outlines the methodology we used to reach our conclusions. all of the information was compiled together to produce a series of recommendations for PRASA to follow. PRASA replaced 100. To do this. 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. In other words. Meter replacement is important to PRASA. the scale allowed for easy analysis of the responses received.1. Additionally. the evaluation was designed to show us how their plan fared against other replacement plans. prompted this evaluation of their meter replacement plan. 3. “A scale is a device for assigning units of analysis to categories of a variable” (Bernard.3 million meters.000 water meters out of its approximately 1.

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

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

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. They expressed interest in a type of meter that allowed an employee to collect meter readings wirelessly. an established cost-benefit analysis methodology was used to reach our conclusion. Information concerning pricing. Using these figures. vehicle costs. discounts on bulk purchases. accessory costs and similar information was gathered about several different metering systems. The plans were gathered prior to arriving but the comparison took place in Puerto Rico. preventing PRASA from 23 . such as AMR reading and revenue increases due to better accuracy. PRASA was interested in obtaining new meter technology. 3. 3.2 Evaluation of Current Information System A good information system is central to having good data with which to make decisions.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis of New Meter Technology In addition to an improved meter replacement plan. The results of this CBA were used to indicate which meter technology would be most appropriate and cost effective for PRASA.1. Our research and research done by PRASA was used to determine what metering systems were analyzed.looked at and determined whether it could be directly implemented or adapted for use in Puerto Rico. were inferred by using related figures within PRASA. such as salaries of all personnel involved in the replacement. Costs on the current expenses. Comparing plans established a better sense of PRASA’s relative level of efficiency and enabled us to further concentrate our focus for plan revisions. Any costs not available because they are not yet an issue for PRASA. The information system in place at PRASA was thought to be outdated. meter costs and any other pertinent figures were gathered.

3. This method involved taking aspects from other plans and tailoring them to work for Puerto Rico.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.1 Combine Ideal Strategies from Other Plans After the evaluation of current plans from other locations. Questions regarding ease of use. The following sections detail the methods used to create the new plan. 3. applicable strategies were derived and combined with the suggestions from the staff and customers to create a final set of recommendations. we determined what steps the administrators were taking to improve the system. Finally. Additionally. Judgment was based on the size of the area the plan came from. During the interview. we sent out employee questionnaires along with the director questionnaires. Plan specifics from each plan were investigated and their suitability for Puerto Rico was judged. Additionally.working efficiently.3. the accuracy of the data and what data should be accessible were used to obtain employee reactions to the system.2. The plan must be enhanced with new procedures that are more efficient. 3.3 Creation of a New Replacement Plan Meter replacement plans currently in place are not as effective as they could be. These surveys were to be filled out by employees that use the information system. we determined the age and shape of the system. the data within the system itself could not be guaranteed to be 100 percent accurate. We asked what kinds of reading systems worked with the current system and how readings taken in the field were inserted into the database. how inclusive the plan 24 .

3. 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. Drafting the plan allowed us to determine what should be altered or improved. Additional information such as complexity and cost was gathered and used in the judgment as well. This allowed our time to be spent more efficiently.3. 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. this size discrepancy must be taken into account when adapting the plan for use in Puerto Rico. Information we gathered was shared with our liaison in order to receive his feedback.000 meters. If a replacement strategy calls for the testing of every meter. modifying proven replacement strategies rather than creating new ones.2 Iterative Drafting of Plan The drafting process was the final stage of the plan development. 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. This was continued throughout the initial drafting of the plan and the successive reviews and updates by our sponsor and advisors. 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. Evaluating replacement plans indicated how PRASA ranks in relation to other water utilities and helped identify new replacement techniques. The cost-benefit analysis showed us 25 . This methodology was successful in accomplishing our goal of providing recommendations on how to make PRASAs meter management better. Director and customer surveys were all considered when choosing a plan to implement. PRASA has more meters to deal with than most American water authorities.

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

27 . our observations on the information system will be explained. but many people did not have the time to fill out a questionnaire.1. Water Consumption Knowledge and 42% 22% 7% 24% Figure 1 – Overall Satisfaction with PRASA lastly. In general. director survey.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. The main points of the plan comparisons will be detailed and the results of the cost benefit analysis will be presented. Finally. In this chapter. The information collected from the questionnaires was separated into four different categories: Overall Rating of PRASA. 4. 4. we describe the results of our customer and director surveys. Pricing. people were willing to give us their opinions of PRASA. This chapter will focus on the analysis and presentation of our findings. Service Reliability and Interruptions. replacement plan evaluation and the cost-benefit analysis.1 Customer Survey In total. This section will present our findings on the customer survey. 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.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.

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

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

respondents can be grouped into four categories. emerges in this graph as well. indicated that price was a larger factor than reliability in their overall reliability rating.Overall Satisfaction vs. meaning neither category influenced their overall satisfaction more than the other. 41%. When the numbers are compared side by side. Only 14% said that reliability was the larger contributor and the 30 . that is. Price Rating The same trend. 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 .Satisfaction VS Pricing 6 Satisfaction Rating 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Price Rating Figure 3 . people rating their overall satisfaction low when they rate their water prices fair. A similar number of people.Influence of Pricing or Reliability on Overall Satisfaction About 42% of people rated their reliability and pricing equally with their overall satisfaction.

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

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

Prediction of meters that are going to fail is something that a few utilities (including PRASA) perform. PRASA has a system to test a meter in half an hour. the results of the director survey indicate that there are sufficient employees and technicians at PRASA to do the replacement themselves. but an external company goes into the field and changes the meter. is not suitable for the island of Puerto Rico. making testing every meter on the island impractical. This method. Tampa only has around 120.000 meters while Puerto Rico has 1.699 people. Our contact at the Tucson Water Department said that using a private company was too much paperwork for a city of 486.3 million. while a good way to ensure that the maximum life of a meter is reached. The utility itself keeps track of which meters need to be replaced. The beds can test 40 meters at a time and ensure that the meters are tested in the same manner. Currently. Currently. There are only two ways available for PRASA to test the meters: test beds and individual testing. The results are stored and analyzed to locate any problem areas.3 million water meters would be a significant amount of paperwork and communication to consider. Scaling this up to the island of Puerto Rico with 1. Tucson and PRASA both query their database for meters on the verge of failure. Additionally. This method of testing could be done quicker and by more people than using the test beds. Tucson uses a private company to do the meter replacement. it is used only when customers request that testing be done on their meter. Additionally. All meters are tested at some point during their life to determine which meters need to be replaced. PRASA only has one bed for large meters and one bed for small meters. but the accuracy of testing could vary among test administrators and testing equipment. The second method is individual testing of the selected meters. but do not always use. the beds are very expensive.The city of Tampa uses strict testing procedures for their meter replacement. 33 .

over the course of 10 years.6 Million 1303% 214. Some techniques.3 Million $438. will cost 34 . could be adapted but would not be cost effective. to determine the overall costs of each. Most towns and cities do not have a replacement order.4% 915. 4. Five different systems were analyzed. This works for most areas.The way meters are chosen to be replaced is the final strategy considered.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. From internal Table 1 .5 Million $187.1% 100% PRASA cost documents.3 Million $197. This system involves AMCO V100 water meters.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. This system. we Please refer to Appendix I for cost data were able to determine the costs of the system.1.% 65. Most of the meter replacement strategies discussed in this chapter are not directly usable in Puerto Rico.1% 0% 623. The first system was the system that is currently in use by the authority. which are read visually and the data recorded by hand. but they can be adapted to work. Inefficient meter replacement selection strategies could lead to a backlog of meters needing replacement. or the order is chosen by which meters will bring in the most money. but Puerto Rico has a meter count of almost 10 times that of even the largest city that we investigated. This section will review the results of the analysis of each of the five systems.3% -0. such as contracting with a private company. including the current system.

however. ten Mobile AMR systems. The initial cost of the investment would total around $438. including its compatibility with a number of other meters. having a lot of experience outfitting a water authority with advanced equipment. PRASA is planning on upgrading to a fixed network system in the near future.760. This system. This system would yield a large reduction in yearly costs. we reviewed a system using the AMCO V100 with the ORION system from Badger Water Meters. a major drawback. On-Site training.35 million water meters as well as the costs for reading the system yearly. including the AMCO Meters. it would cost around $141. Additionally. while increasing accuracy and efficiency. where stationary receivers are placed throughout the area with readings transmitted over phone or internet lines. To use a fixed-network system. One of the most significant benefits of an AMR system is the extreme reduction in reading costs.3 Million. This system would have the meters being read by an employee in a vehicle. as well as every other AMR system analyzed.6 Million. different transmitters would be needed. but with 20 Mobile AMR systems. there is a good chance the transmitters would still work. The next system studied would continue to use AMCO V100 meters and pair them with an AMR system from Datamatic Metering Systems Inc. If they were to switch to another meter.3 Million for a 10-system kit. will yield a yearly reading cost of $221. The initial investment in the system would cost around $141. For the same system.35 Million meters. which make it a good candidate for PRASA. Badger AMR hardware and software. Thirdly.4 Million for replacing all of the 1. and system optimization. or around $11.PRASA around $88. they are a very high-tech company.1 Million. and personnel 35 . There is. This figure includes the cost of replacing all 1. significantly lower than the current reading cost. This system would entail a great deal more work in the future and ultimately cost them more money. This system is the lowest in cost and contains a few features.

in half the time it would take a 10 mobile reader system. $7. The next system was the same Badger AMR system from above. 2007. However. 330. The system. the introduction of badger meters removes the need for the very expensive conversion piece. If this system did not represent such a large investment. if the new system is installed starting on January 1st. but matched with the Badger Recordall Disc meter. using the same transmitters.500. 2005 would be lost and in need of replacement. Again. would cost about $197.5 Million. the issue concerning the older meters is an important one. Replacing the meters is not just a matter of money. Additionally.000 worth of meters would have been wasted. This system.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. Besides this issue. but time as well. 36 . The time and effort necessary to go back and replace the older meters while continually replacing newer meters are issues that cannot be overlooked. with 10 mobile AMR systems. while more costly than the previously mentioned one. This system is very similar to the other Badger system. any meters installed after January 1st. it would be a reliable choice. will interface better due to the fact that the AMR system was engineered to match the meters. A 20-system kit would cost around $438. if this system is chosen.training. This amount would have to be added to the cost of the final system. This means that.5 Million dollars. while the system with 20 mobile AMR systems would cost around $197. This system is very costly in comparison to the other systems. accurately. at the least.000 AMCO meters would be rendered useless and. However. raising the total cost for this system by 7. Badger is a reliable company that PRASA has had experience with in the past.7 Million. the extra 10 systems would allow the authority to read the entire island’s meter supply. This is primarily due to the conversion from the signals that the AMCO meters emit to the ones required by the Badger transmitters.

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

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

for around 10 years. no longer uses efficient reading practices. while using quality meters. specifically. PRASA will 39 .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. The current system. The current reading practices cost PRASA around 11 million per year which is significantly more than the costs to use the newer AMR systems. 5. and then will present our recommendations for the best AMR system to use. 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.1 Meter Replacement Strategies The majority of this project dealt with meter replacement strategies. 5. Additionally. an investigation of other water authorities. These systems have rendered manual reading practices virtually obsolete. and a feasibility study of newer metering technologies. processes relating to customer service were investigated. and widely used. how the meters are replaced and what they should be replaced with. Automatic meter reading systems have been readily available. we performed an evaluation of their current practices. To this end. Simply by switching to any AMR system.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. Based on this.1. This section details our conclusions and recommendations on these issues.

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. it has a significant drawback that does not allow us to recommend it. While being the cheapest system. This is something PRASA needs to have the flexibility to do without more cost and replacement issues. The only system without a major drawback is the ITRON AMR and AMCO meters system. Adding this to the already expensive $197. the transmitters for vehicle reading are not compatible with a fixed-network system. 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. This cost is a large one.500. while providing one of the better integrated solutions. 40 . 11 years as opposed to 2 or 3 for the other systems. Although the Datamatic system is the least expensive. Additionally. 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. To use this system.reap the benefits of a significant decrease in expenses per year. 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. The astronomical cost does not allow this system to pay itself off in an acceptable amount of time. and certainly more difficult to recover from. This represents at the very least a $7. The system that uses Badger meters and AMR devices. Based on these evaluations. any AMCO meters in the field would need to be replaced by Badger hardware. This would leave PRASA attempting to recover from its losses for a long period of time. Similarly.8 Million system renders a cost of nearly $205 Million.000 loss in meters and an additional two years of replacement.

PRASA’s monthly replacement goal for 2006 is 17. The decision regarding whether to keep the current meters and the accompanying AMR technology.5. the goal and the actual number should be compared. In March. we feel PRASA should continue to replace meters as it has been. These numbers average 18.164 meters per month. If the decision to install AMR technology is delayed. The worst case scenario is that every meter on the island must be revisited and fitted with AMR technology. In order to facilitate this replacement.000 meters a month. In order to do this. Making the switch earlier will allow the meters currently being replaced to be fitted with AMR technology. meters should be replaced in groups.2 Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology PRASA has been investigating the use of Automatic Meter Reading technology. Given this information. they should continue. or to use or a completely new metering technology needs to be made promptly. the number of meters that must be revisited will increase each year. starting in 2006. 5. an average of 200. According to data received during the plan comparison. they could replace 217.1. PRASA is currently in the process of replacing a large number of meters. If not.967 meters by the end of this year.1. Meters close to 41 .000 meters should be replaced each year. In January they replaced 15. Each meter replaced is not being replaced with the proper AMR transmitter. Continuing their current trend.000 meters.000 meters of their goal. they replaced roughly 18. If PRASA is within 20. Meters in close proximity should be replaced by the same technician(s) on the same trip. a more realistic quota should be created and evaluated the following year. At the end of the year.225 meters and in February they replaced 21.269.3 Meter Replacement Timeline PRASA would like to be able to replace every meter on the island within a timeframe of 6 to 7 years.000 to 30.

4 Meter Testing With the introduction of AMR. so grouping is easy. 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. From this. a representative sample of meters could be used to determine the health of the system. a separate trip to the meter will not be necessary in the future. Replacing a still functioning meter may save money by doing so along with meters that do need replacing. This could be done over the course of ten years until all meters had been serviced. Selecting which meters to test is important. it would take 140 employees 11 weeks to test 130. each region would need at least one test bed of its own.needing replacement should be considered for replacement. The use of a test bed would allow many meters to be tested at once.1.000 meters. 5. Densely populated regions lend themselves to this strategy because their meters are close together. a refined meter replacement timeline could be made. The increase in available personnel could be utilized for a meter-testing plan. The number of meters PRASA manages is too large to test every one in a timely manner. Sparsely populated regions would benefit from this by reducing the travel time needed to go from meter to meter. however. This would allow testing to be done on site and the results recorded immediately. not counting travel time or other breaks. At half an hour a test. This way. 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. fewer PRASA technicians will be needed to do meter readings. Additionally. 42 . Other water authorities have implemented similar techniques with positive results. For test beds to be used. Samples taken over time could provide a more accurate measurement of meter life and usage. Therefore. This testing should be done with the equipment used to test a meter at a customer’s request.

through testing. If this is so. If it is determined that a region’s meters do not last as long as other regions. additional workers could be hired or replacement schedules could be offset in order for resource pooling to be more effective. This way. removing the need to hire more workers. the replacement timeline for the entire island would be changed to match the new data. If. The current meter 43 .A method that would produce quicker results would be random testing. that region should replace their meters less often. 5. Randomly selecting from the regional pool of meters could result in grouping and depict an inaccurate portrayal of the region. replacement schedules can be adjusted so workers from adjacent regions could assist in the replacement. If the increase in work is minimal. the replacement should be stepped up. it is determined that a particular region’s meters last longer than the others. workers from the metro and north regions could concentrate on the metro region one week and the northern region the next. for example.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. A faster paced replacement timeline would require more work from the technicians. A slower paced replacement timeline would allow more meters to be tested by the workers not needed for meter replacement. Adjusting its replacement timeline to make better use of the meter would save time and money. 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. replacing the meters sooner.1. This will ensure that a meter is replaced once it begins to underestimate water usage. Each region would randomly select 10-20% of the meters on each reading route to test. If the work is too much. It is possible that the entire island would show a significant increase or decrease in average meter life after these tests.

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. the PRASA data center is in the process of collecting and analyzing bids for a new system. Based on the amount of progress the data center has already made and the level of competence we saw in the data center administrators. 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. 5.2 Information System Recommendations While PRASA is using relatively old software and slightly newer hardware that should be replaced. PRASA should continue on its present course in the information system area without any changes.replacement plan states that meters needing replacement in the near future are searched for in the database. Customers would be given a window of time. To save postage. These recommendations. These two pieces of information can be combined and the customer could be informed approximately when services like meter replacement would happen. Any possible concerns or conflicts could be dealt with prior to the work. coupled with the experience and talent employees at PRASA. They hope to have the upgrade process completed within three years. 44 .

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

Miguel. PR. William P. Michigan. This document contained confidential pricing information concerning ITRON metering systems 10. Water Resources Management in Island Environments: The Challenge of Tourism Development. (2000).htm) Basic information on water meters as well as links to many other places on the internet dealing with water meters. McLees. (2006). (2005).edu. PR. (2006). International Journal of Water Resources Development. 30.9. This report contained data on internal PRASA costs and consumption figures. The Industrial Manufacturers Directory. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Pontiac. (2006). . 2006 11. Water Engineering & Management. 22-23. Retrieved Jan 30 from the ArticleFirst database This is an article about a water meter replacement program done in Atlantic City.waterindustry. 143(8). 2006 from http://www. Retrieved on Jan 30th.Flow Meters (http://www. Unpublished internal document. 21-22. 12. San Juan. Water Engineering & Management. AMR installation: Make your own decision. Mark. WA.R (2004). PRASA. 387-398. John. Government took reins of water authority. Retrieved Jan. 14. (1993). Puerto Rico: An Evolving Process.iqsdirectory. Document – AAA Revenue and Consumption Figures. Will help us get an idea of what people have done in the past 15. Unpublished internal document. (1996). This document contained confidential pricing information concerning AMCO metering systems 18. (2006). 20 (3). Miguel. Document – ITRON Meter Price Sheet. NJ. (2006). Luciano. PRASA. McPhaul. Ortiz-Zayas.pdf 46 . Alphonso. This report detailed meter system prices given to Miguel by Datamatic. 13. J.org/Water-Facts/puerto%20rico4. Integrated Water Resources Management in the Luquillo Mountains. Document – AMCO Meter Price Sheet. Jackson. Water management issues for an area of Puerto Rico.com/info/flow-meters/index. Retrieved February 10th from http://www. 17. Isabella. Anatomy of a water meter replacement program. ITRON. San Juan. Luciano. M. Perez. AMCO.au/cwpr/Papers/update. Unpublished internal document. Document – Datamatic Price Sheet. Pigram. Will help us gain perspective on previous water replacement programs.htm This is article details PRASA’s previous experience with privatization 16. 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. Henry. faced strike. Spokane. PR. 140(1).une. Unpublished internal document. John J.

org/corp_profiles/public_service_gats_pdfs/VivendiProfile.edu/ndwc/articles/OT/SU04/TechBrief_WaterMeters. (2004.acueductospr. Puerto Rico. 23. 2006. Discusses their venture into Puerto Rico 22. Smith.htm) Provided current and future PRASA water rates for the island of Puerto Rico 20. 2006. Best Meter Management Practices for Water Utilities. Water Meters. Department of Energy.pridco. Kendra.. 14-15. IQP – Water Conservation Options for Fajardo. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.polarisinstitute. Worcester. Unpublished IQP report.com/english/operational_advantages/4. PRASA – Nueva Estructura Tarifaria. Dale. (2004). Preventative maintenance plays a key role in keeping a large system of breakable units running smoothly.html) Gives more statistics on the water infrastructure of the PRASA (Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority). (2002). Horsman. Names big water consuming companies as well as general water use patterns for Puerto Rico. Article talks about preventative maintenance and different styles of doing so. Shea. 37. Four task categories to understand in undertaking preventive maintenance. Retrieved Jan 30th from the ArticleFirst database Gives water meter purchasing and management advice. Retrieved Jan 30th. 21.pdf A look at various Vivendi projects and their outcomes. from http://www.pnl. Plant Engineering. Retrieved Feb 20th. (2005). Water Management Plan for Fort Buchanan. Retrieved Jan 30th. Provides a glimpse at the water concerns for this fort and metering concerns and distribution for this fort. Will give another perspective on how other people think water meters should be handled. Satterfield. (2006). 26.3opr_adv_infrastructure.The article talks about tourism and how water management plays an important role when that tourism is on an island. Donald L.. 25. (2002). & Bhardwaj. Puerto Rico. 59(12). 147(8). Schlenger. Anthony M. 2006 from http://www.com/nueva_estructura_tarifaria. June). & Hanson Eric. 47 . Puscas. Darren. The article gives pertinent information on water island concerns. It helps to justify why the meters need to be fixed.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL14533. specifically the section on metering. (2000). Conozca su nueva tarifa Retrieved March 23rd from (http://www.pdf Article provides reasons for having flow meters other than customer payment as well as meter information. 24. Water engineering & management. Zane. MA.pdf Water management plan for a fort in North Western Puerto Rico. 19. 2006 from http://www.nesc. WPI. Vivendi Universal – Corporate Profile. U. Water (http://www. Pridco – Operation Advantages Infrastructure.S. Retrieved on Jan 30th. (2006). Vipin.wvu.

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

Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 2. como electricidad. No sé exactamente la cantidad de agua que uso. una universidad de los Estados Unidos. y por la Autoridad en un intento de mejorar servicio a sus clientes. Será administrado por estudiantes de Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Usualmente. 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. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 4. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 3. estoy satisfecho con el servicio que ofrece la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA). Se me factura por la cantidad de agua que uso. se me factura por menos agua de la que uso. En general. como parte de un proyecto educativo. La información obtenida de este estudio sólo será usada para los propósitos del proyecto. 1. el precio de agua es apropiado. toda de esta información será privada y anónima. Comparado a lo que pago por otras utilidades. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 49 . También.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. Muy en desacuerdo acuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Muy de 5.

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

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. 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 . 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. AMR es el paso próximo por la tecnología de leer. 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. Para asegurar la representación correcta de su departamento. por favor conteste las preguntas lo más completa y honradamente que pueda. 1) Por favor. no-técnicos.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. AMR debe ser instalado tan pronto que sea posible.

Los técnicos deben tener instrumentos mejores. ¿cuánto? 1 2 3 4 5 ¿Cómo? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2) ¿Hay problemas de acceso a los contadores? Sí No a) Si es la verdad. Debe estar instrucción mejor para los técnicos. 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. Debe haber menos 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 . ¿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. no-técnicos.Empleados (Lo incluya supervisores.

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

Plaza Las Americas 54 .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 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 2.9 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.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.Customer Survey Results .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 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 2.7 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.

Opinions on Reliability of PRASA Service .Plaza Las Americas 55 .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 .

Customer Survey Results .Ponce 56 .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 .

Satisfaction with Service in Ponce 10% 30% 27% 33% Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Middle Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 7 .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 .Ponce 57 .

b.Metro Region 58 .b.b NA NA NA NA 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.b yes 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 yes yes ALL 1 2 3 4 yes 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.Results from Director Interview .c yes b/obs yes a.c.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.

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 .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 .

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 .Opinions on Current Reading Technology – East Region 60 .

d 1 3 3 4 NA yes e 6+ 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes a.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.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 .d 6+ 6++ 6+ 6+ yes yes d 1 3 3 3 yes yes a 5 6+ 6+ 6+ yes yes b.b.Metro Region 61 .

Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement – East Region 62 .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 .

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.South Region 63 .b.Results from Director Survey .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 .

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 .Necessity of Automatic Reading – South Region 64 .Satisfaction with the Current Meters .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 .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 .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 .South Region 65 .

Director Survey Results – West Region 66 .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 .

5 0 12 345123 45123 451234 5 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement Figure 21 .West Region Number of People Reqired For Meter Replacement 4 3.5 3 2.Technicians Required for Meter Replacement .5 1 0.Opinions on Current Reading Technology .Opinions on Current Meter Technology .5 2 1.West Region 67 .Are The Current Meters the Best? not the best no opinion it’s the best Figure 19 .West Region Is the Technology Used To Read the Meters the Best? not the best neutral best Figure 20 .

5 1 0.5 2 1.5 3 2.Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement 4 3.Technicians Present at a Meter Replacement .West Region 68 .5 0 123451234 512345123 45 5/8" 2"-4" 4"-6" 6"-8" Number of Technicians Present for a Meter Replacement Figure 22 .

45 0 69 .43 31.16 1.65 2.6 2.258.67 2.456.63 1.87 123.51 22.1 1.162.44 1.35 > 35 11 . Conozca su Nueva Tarifa) RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 Bloq 2 Bloq 3 Bloq 1 11 .67 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" RESIDENTIAL Fase 1 7.09 638.22 85.45 0 Fase 2 21.607.28 Industrial 1.Water Rates .07 1. 2006.13 1.86 77.03 910.79 0 Commercial/Government 1.53 1.49 131.16 Commercial/Government/Industrial Fase 1 1/2" y 5/8" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 15.13 294.93 1.56 1.64 171.13 1.67 11.15 16 .71 19.33 61.70 0 Fase 2 10.23 36.85 213.73 53.77 277.135.Current and Future (PRASA.013.09 1.65 4.869.991.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 .9 1.6 1.11 384.95 38.18 26.15 16 .88 1.97 786.6 16.37 569.584.84 94.35 > 35 > 10 0.72 107.61 2.41 Fase 2 1.58 50.84 461.

00 1 13. B.119.31 $1.218.70 42 3.717.87 0.39 655 558. G (Luciano.90 0.90 0.85 0.47 $1.00 0.61 70 .20 $1.00 46.11458 1m = gal Comercial Comercial NEW_Meter 5/8.79 $1.90 3. Precio Costo Estimada A 177.70 0.00 10 1.00 0.219.339.00 18 274.00 3 1.96 0.39 $1.90 5.36 3098 209.00 Real A 125 39.11 $1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.28 299.494.00 0.00 32.34 $1.90 0.466. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 2 4.00 32 95.71 1783 1. 2006) 3 264.16 0.Consumption Figures – A.441.00 58 249.28 829.77 0.793.38 0.36 2521 246. AAA Revenue.Consumption Figures Table 9 .90 0.367.04 0.14 0. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.11 0.636.74 0.792.90 0.28 439.201.97 48 3.053.71 1430 137.450.00 1. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.00 0.00 42.00 372. C.922.081.95 0.148. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.394. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.49 $1.00 4 65.851.873.03 Real C 49908 56. F.00 Real B 9 37.28 2.28 3.843.58 $1.15 799 429.00 Estimada C 58.00 2 1.784.00 306.28 189.42 0.82 $1.180.347.00 0.61 $1.562.17 1939 120.00 20 5.45 0.65 $1.00 45 2.07 1908 999.00 694.00 Estimada B 9.

32 119 7.074.00 12.63 6 29.476.398.615.84 71 .00 4 5.00 106.17 0.88 0.45 0.00 195.00 11.970.00 862.705.55 5 25.02 $1.25 0.410.631.90 1.# Cuentas Consumo Prom.63 $1.830.543.505.49 $9.891.824.334.111.099.292.89 0.98 $1.00 0.23 $1.90 761.775.99 0.00 3 5.00 245.00 0.43 13 30.00 132.00 762.18 $1. 8" Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 6 11.00 24.90 0.39 0.45 66.653.28 223.996.00 0.36 $14.49 15 30.565.28 593.480.00 2 7.96 0.28 1.00 0.00 0.809.00 31.00 0.00 312. 6" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom. 4" Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.37 56.827.00 123 6.67 $1.00 0.

00 6.649.07 0.502.648.295.90 98.889.846.912.769.83 $1.444.95 3.77 80.222.727.60 1.44 $1.00 23.031.87 $1.25 3.90 505.145.90 $304.43 0.00 2.70 128 4.504.178.236.90 $4.00 2.31 2.90 $1.173.91 177 4.Gobierno Gobierno Estimada F 1.33 Real Total 53.00 86.00 115.32 247.180.086.45 550 461.15 $7.00 Real F 1 8.00 590.00 445.94 $1.94 300.15 $1.74 $1.501.391.253.00 84.90 1.06 $1.184.082.451.919.090.00 0.00 0.90 Real G 4004 112.23 1136 1.013.00 0.421.198.00 481.668.00 3.80 $1.43 41 16.695.90 $921.00 0.58 57 1.00 0.02 0.851.062.34 $6.00 1.643.87 $1.067.00 9.00 144.349.818.76 $1.18 $1.126.23 0.52 4.523.00 Estimada G 5.00 64.00 1.14 507 149.90 Estimada Total 64.00 5.879.00 22.69 $2.35 $1.95 265 194.37 $414.072.706.14 659.00 1.94 2.00 166.157.503.90 3.635.90 $5.945.71 $1.08 38 1.140.55 105.90 859.95 328 621.90 387.68 $1.36 $470.062.686.87 0.26 26 13.34 983.350.833.811.136.111.00 256.094.00 1.492.513.184.488.710.00 0.558.67 1.95 $1.92 56.99 0.99 $1.49 $1.91 $1.62 955.60 1001 265.26 $1.414.17 1629 264.446.466.00 72 .522.784.90 $444.00 0.00 135.355.745.22 0.90 107.443.00 819.091.26 0.90 $2.029.68 39.482.00 236.610.18 1735 1.14 $1.95 0.

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).623.408.44 63.148.781.633.00 59.00 8.63 9.24 $1.286.789.87 $0. C (comercial).00 589.44 $19.29 10.30 $1.930.685.534.489.22 $8.28 $2.00 1.98 0.90 11.00 P= Residencial Públic 0.00 451.95 $0.60 $949.662.621.888.90 4 92.73 77.28 704.00 1.02 $22.00 171.048.406. I (Industrial) = son Regular El G = Gobierno La A = Cuentas AAA La P = Residencial Público 73 .713.00 9.158.343.08 6.5 192.955.00 208.825.268.00 110.11 $10.00 1.

81 1082 118.16 69.16 0.87 2.66 795 902.49 264.00 17 14.600.16 227.35 2.16 1.00 84.54 269 515.Table 10 .01 4661 16.16 Real R 967258 34.86 2.798.377.84 72.570. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.49 140.28 85.695.16 Real P 39673 32.52 55 224. and Totals (Luciano.95 74 1.86 1 5.025.430.570.54 1.53 85.16 128.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.66 1.67 Estimada P 50.16 123.475.802.67 451.374.02 301.16 32.015. Precio Costo # Cuentas Estimada I 230.00 27 0.413.94 368.36 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.87 2.69 1.469.085.759.65 160 260.00 30.45 146 390.16 277.361.20 1.414.800.67 1.34 18 7.34 1. 2006) Industry Industry Residencial Público Residencial Privado NEW_Meter 5/8.16 157.Consumption Figures .50 2.039. 1/2 1 1/2" 1" 2" 3" 3/4" Data # Cuentas Consumo Prom.46 10 763.763.54 1249 97.75 2.83 1.01 2. AAA Revenue.10 2.955.67 3.39 2.76 110 339.67 37 0.48 1.12 240 711.28 770 1.759.600.07 2.I.783.85 2.311.67 Real I 161 110.198.97 12 566. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.54 1.67 137.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.67 0.551.67 29.108.747.123.708.69 299.92 1.67 62. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo Prom.22 4079 74 .444.43 1.00 10 18.80 129 564. P.489.80 110 698.16 Estimada R 1.66 1 3.90 2.00 6 10.11 71. R.58 18 7.00 30.525.67 390.

66 20 2.243.770.00 50.71 1.206.051.591.88 0.77 75 .00 2.67 12.67 34.00 34.67 0.27 15.04 5.740.61 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 4" Prom.48 12 27.785.708.67 2.00 2.292.321.44 1.010.316.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.16 1.488.00 30.25 12 28.26 19 2.66 543.133.606.67 0.333.Consumo Prom.646.11 529.784.38 105 10. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 8" Prom.697.16 55.702.749.27 876.86 73.16 No Consumption No Consumption 2.00 0.79 0.29 2.16 1.380.754.733.85 30 31.184.67 1.71 30 32.53 2.00 972.53 No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption No Consumption 577.313.57 4 1.75 5.00 31.87 2.085.526.223.47 2.882.61 559.312.88 1.16 12.404.059.16 23.353.388.00 1.27 73.67 209.00 0.85 101 9.06 2.90 3.16 1.821.425. Precio Costo Total # Cuentas Promedio Global Total Costo 138.825.33 94.119.858.75 1.770.08 2. Precio Costo # Cuentas Consumo 6" Prom.932.808.16 60.376.898.00 15.00 94.15 0.24 0.30 1.638.896.03 1.00 32.98 1.515.092.720.50 1.00 39.45 4 1.67 1.20 1.

98 1.00 474.026.84 7.00 3.06 4.561.092.413.400.31 340.336.813.201.594.00 362.226.00 193.27 34.00 4 54.53 9.265.868.56 30.06 1.401.442.906.24 241.00 4.185.73 4.720.198.828.00 557.707.11 135.00 890.32 546.380.712.00 17.53 79.83 80.884.520.00 2.57 1.443.53 4.549.00 404.79 2.04 367.00 118.00 97.94 1.44 AMR Incremental Benefits 1.305.391.254.011.48 1.18 1.00 156.00 4 40.495.708.464.007.26 256.759.823.132.17 163.73 8.392.00 11.451.004.700.376.785.561.552.994.202.72 4.48 334.167.267.578.49 242.27 2.009.04 74.849.706.824.186.032.00 2.00 2.172.40 4.065.028.Estimada Total 1.18 160.022.549.00 573.00 76.976.00 4 10.00 11.30 125.88 7.930.25 425.197.136.491.081.00 612.19 1.061.00 181.60 425.007.984.86 1.00 4 2.605.96 73.26 108.00 56.994.00 4.825.00 1.00 5.00 4.75 543.00 59.81 1.35 Estimada Grand Total 1.80 1.00 4 76 .336.98 251.00 4 902.740.68 135.00 105.791.00 2.31 4.532.59 203.88 1.419.894.70 16.743.53 4.142.28 Real Total 1.76 1.00 752.48 28.980.82 1.87 7.00 4 30.498.00 131.146.89 294.708.29 792.71 6.21 90.06 1.679.29 34.00 206.757.424.017.00 4.00 48.652.459.189.37 243.16 1.12 6.188.359.85 2.638.26 574.88 4.201.72 120.963.605.00 125.07 2.00 489.491.157.78 1.647.931.55 5.00 2.262.700.31 8.018.00 71.98 Real Grand Total 1.00 3.189.00 64.746.00 17.23 655.006.00 10.16 1.00 16.16 90.89 Total 6 Months 2.74 75.24 10.474.752.014.39 13.146.982.939.866.133.033.

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

056.056.473.63 621.070.259.566.070.259.473.160.259.070.369.732.79) (15.259.070.323.43 621.99) 605.64 621.20) 0.63 (11.43 621.056.160.160.600.732.089.20) (4.00) (26.63 621.259.63 Year 9 621.160.20) (11.566.439.160.369.732.056.63 Year 8 621.070.259.592.056.439.720.160.369.056.056.63 (15.797.732.732.259.00 (11.681.056.63 621.63 621.63 621.63 Year 10 621.00 (11.566.64 621.131.20) 0.99) (11.323.056.99) (11.79) (15.439.439.323.259.160.160.074.797.43 6.720.20) 0.369.160.20) 610.20) (11.070.600.Current System Costs Table 12 .056.089.070.056.63 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (11.99) (11.29 (136.056.160.160.720.070.63 621.056.29 (11.434.070.842.323.160.79) (15.00 (11.55 Incremental Cash Flow – Current System 80 .160.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.20) (4.160.20) 610.00 (11.259.089.63 (15.211.720.259.99) 605.64 621.63 621.439.160.74) 6.160.216.797.20) 610.64 621.20) (4.720.056.732.99) 605.63 Total 6.797.74) (136.259.600.070.732.056.20) (4.439.99) 621.43 621.160.63 621.369.070. 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 ` 621.211.056.056.070.99) 605.323.056.20) (110.919.20) 0.259.160.259.369.64 621.070.439.056.259.160.20) (4.160.160.259.056.702.259.63 (15.439.056.732.732.Net Cash Flow .63 (11.473.160. (Luciano.439.63 (11.473.434.720.63 621.732.070.056.20) 610.29 6.63 (15.63 621.473.056.070.732.63 621.070.79) (15.63 621.732.160.20) (4.211.99) (11.74) 621.070. AAA Revenue.473.439.99) (11.056.160.64 Year 7 621.160.323.63 621.160.056.63 (11.439.160.63 621.160.63 (15.056.79) (15.160.919.63 621.99) 605.056.20) (11.056.089.99) 605.79) (15.63 (15.056.160.259.259.056.439.070.

793. 2006) (Henry.72 10.40 41.941.52 295.970.23) (6.23) (7.716.793.502.524.852.89 Year 4 24.780.908.96) (30.502.80) (9.467.02) (10.502.614.502.823.30 15.72 10.010.852. AAA Revenue.592.704.72 10.72 10.06 28.134.352.592.64 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON (15.793.40 41.Current System Calculated using information received from internal PRASA cost data.01) Year 7 37.39) (57.050. (Gomez and Morera.217.439.136.01) (5.793.050.40 41.314.Incremental Cash Flow .89 19.439.845.89 19.971.Table 13 .59) (51.780.72 Year 2 15.01) (6.40 41.72 10.780.242.716.23) (6.592.911.322.00) (6.970.852.750.176.793.908.502.322.136.302.502.970.716.80) (9.780.412.381.502.314.793.845.050.80) (9.793.936.26) (22.908.72 10.592.823.64 33.80) (8.40 41.377.793.23) (7.52 (9.47 24.80) 10.970.050.69) 81 .23) (7.72 10.40 41.47 Year 5 28.136.443.911.592.23 37.780.592.502.439.442.852.845.89 19.80) (48.592.592.592.716.06 28.72 10.40 41.72 10.212. 2006) Year 1 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 10.716.644.828.780.179.346.536.72 10.52 295.26) (35.547.716.780.23 Year 8 41.911.911.217.793. Datamatic.992.377.23 37.440.80) (48.72 (21.768.793.254.30 Year 3 19.502.050.40 41.47 24.00) (52.80) (9.217.793.793.72 10.718.64 33. 2006) (Perez.290.502.80) (47.845.40 Year 9 41.217.439.502.40 Total 295.971.716.381.638.426.80) (48.314.72 10.054.060.52 295.381.502.592.06 28.59) (12.136.64 33.440.793.01) (5.417.80) (47.502.502.377.440.910.881.322.793.30 15.254.100.314.502.690.592.780.72 10.716.716.845.440. 2006) (Luciano.971.908.43) (312.592.06 Year 6 33.016.177.23 37.716.793.40 Year 10 41.322.716.823.30 15.40 41.780.470.793.217.971.823. 2006) (Luciano.381.47 24.01) (5.762.72 10.120.502.716.780.377.

439.780.809.852.12 41.793.302.716.793.40 10.592.881.386.21 37.793.254.804.208.381.935.83 28.691.23) 10.23) 5.852.510.845.502.08 15.592.136.693.716.921.095.Incremental Cash Flow Summary Table 14 . Datamatic.095.793.72 (15.74) 28.381.536.793.80) 27.054.716.095.12 41.80) 28.716.12 41.684.738.502.510.23) 15.149.502.217.54) 10.872.718.793.762.852.502.793.50) 15.439.72 52.72 52.560.020.28) 15.502.716.095.322.971.750.910.212.510.193.52 (57. 2006) (Henry.780.793.754.377.672.41 33.Incremental Cash Flow Summary .80) 9.510.064.89 (9.440.12 82 .352.845.346.322.88 41.72 52.971.217.136.911.64 (5.198.592.89 (48.716.936.314.908.40 10.12 41.47 (9.911. 2006) (Perez.970.306.780.823.506.524.426.795. 2006) (Luciano.52 (21.12 41.793.958.768.623.80) 18.50 15.823.510.793.793.502.40 10.440.06 (9.59) (13. 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 37.439.67 24.43 10.510.050.758.377.510.47 (5.095.12 41.23 (10.470.716.290.136.01) 26.01) 17.095.788.389.64 (47.592.314.Possible Systems Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.64 (6.592.050.649.716. 2006) (Luciano.643.828.095.381.970.30 (48.858.16) 33.80) 13.40 10.596.72 52.40 10.059.80) (18.322.02) 25.06 (47.381.217.89 (7.12 41.59) 28.26) 238.72 (30.30 (6.36) 37.100.060.510.23) 19.448.016.716.095.242.23 (12.095.095.592.87) 295.823.80) (14.381.66 19.841.40 10.417.89 (6.095.405.40 10.72 52.911.852.177.592.992.72 52.80) (28.12 41.908.443.30 (9.43) 274.09 295.908.793.160.385.971.095.704.124.12 24.911.72 (22. AAA Revenue.403.134.80) (33.47 (7.663.01) 7.26) (19.327.63 B/A B/B I/A 41.23 (51.407.029.40 10.050.217.597.254.547.47 (48.01) 22.422.28) 10.64 37.222.46 295.614.355.23) 24.823.659.780.01) 12.439.628.780.84 33.502.83 28.136.96) (41.793.72 52.72 52.386.510.941.190.40 10.80) (23.502.24) 10.638.050.510.780.442.412.971.00) (11.780.23 (9.05 33.502.377.592.673.440.716.592.33) 24.502.644.340.00) (5.06 (5.72 52.179.52 (312.120.29 41.91) 19.790.502.592.326.72 52.941.69) 259.502.127.39) (16.176.12 19.217.72 (52.917.510.970.40 10.050.09 19.780.440.716.716.502.40 10.314.780.502.908.25 24.970.780.095.940.72 52.793.40 10.502.467.010.06 (6.26 295.502.793.322.845.377.845.484.30 (7.12 41.64 (8.80) 23.314.690.592.970.845.26 28.793.52 (35. (Gomez and Morera.510.592.72 52.851.

841.810.97) Year 4 $24.46 $31.74) Year 2 $15.908.30 ($48.911.09 $18.00) ($11.89 ($7.780.217. AAA Revenue.176.377.54) ($74.322.793.340.663.80) ($6. 2006) (Luciano.385.659.80) Year 3 $19.780.506.08 (103.649.45 Year 4 $24.72 $15.72 ($52.71) Year 5 $28.853.67 $23.06 ($9.788.222. 2006) (Henry.261.385.852.83 ($19.74) ($41.638.018.179.30 ($7.403.910.24) $3.822.322.852.100.921.502.448.828.541.421.780.673.50 $13.23) $10.389.25 (145.673.327.149.762.89 $25.06 ($47.439.326.976.47 ($48.502.50) $17.25 Year 5 $28.793. 2006) (Luciano.198.89 $24.448.Cumulative Cash Flow Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.971.176.198.684.127.484.346.381.322.010.060. Datamatic.41 83 .852.992.23) $15.788.560.793.663.938.80) ($5.120.377.252.22 Year 2 $15.06 Total incremental outflows ($15.381.72 ($30.597.061.377.911.88 $11.65) Year 3 $19.971.442.80) ($5.027.439.718.596.426.908.05 ($11.757.01) $17.029.793.649.01) $22.89 ($9.050.26) ($19.47 $28.217.569.208.00) ($6.381.80) ($33.54) Year 1 $10.066.322.30 ($9.46) Year 2 $15.89 ($48.91) $36.917.780.852.379. (Gomez and Morera.872.407.214.752.217.190.780.593.858.217.780.33) $59.780.869.96) ($41.381.28) Year 1 $10.99 Year 4 $24.407.28) ($3.964.01) $12.911.652.23) $5.66 (127.24) Year 1 $10.28) $9. 2006) (Perez.704.28 Year 5 $28.971.06 ($6.386.936.821.738.80) ($18.810.809.31 Year 3 $19.23) $19.99) $8.29 ($3.439.495.050.30 $19.160.242.327. 2006) #N/A Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.502.412.80) ($28.290.644.47 ($7.352.28) ($14.908.72 ($22.050.36 $48.597.362.911.020.691.377.47 ($9.Cumulative Cash Flow Table 15 .971.908.26 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 ($5.326.502.050.851.754.01) $7.984.054.381.439.80) ($23.597.302.80) Net incremental cash flow ($5.780.

970.502.793.39 ($16.016.04 Year 7 $37.503.716.970.793.12 $154.628.881.970.716.941.64 ($6.700.524.672.875.69 Year 6 $33.623.254.617.40 $10.09 Year 10 $41.095.254.21 $80.440.87) Total $295.193.095.Year 6 $33.790.26) $238.467.095.935.12 $133.40 $10.40 $10.440.72 $52.83 Total $295.87 Year 6 $33.592.614.502.095.40 $10.941.998.095.716.793.72 $52.40 $10.43) $274.405.780.795.845.212.095.431.440.592.510.72 $52.690.510.050.970.502.64 ($47.592.52 $312.823.59) ($13.40 $10.823.85 Year 8 $41.02 Year 8 $41.90 Year 7 $37.845.592.52 ($35.314.750.02) $25.095.12 $238.52 ($57.095.71 Year 10 $41.41 $55.443.716.01) $26.502.863.793.510.716.12 $274.385.72 $52.80) $27.793.23 ($10.673.63 $74.716.793.440.12 ($68.050.510.095.958.598.23) $24.386.290.703.09 Year 6 $33.26 Total $295.592.314.502.422.195.12 $221.193.136.095.335.510.510.845.716.23 ($51.136.510.716.502.793.502.793.16) $160.12 $259.716.124.40 $10.793.693.693.780.72 $52.23 ($12.72 $52.26 Year 10 $41.804.502.23 Year 7 $37.117.12 $207.592.502.12 $169.23 ($9.213.14 Year 9 $41.72 $52.386.502.510.510.536.47 Year 8 $41.59) $28.592.592.97 Year 9 $41.314.72 $52.09 Total $295.72 $52.12 $121.724.958.177.72 $52.502.40 $10.804.99) Year 9 $41.592.84 $88.69) $259.716.768.716.136.87) Year 10 $41.40 $10.090.73 Year 7 $37.940.59 Year 9 $41.12 $185.510.845.217.100.095.845.758.40 $10.064.405.64 $116.899.989.793.314.643.411.080149.041.80) $28.407.52 ($21.64 ($5.355.823.793.72 $52.510.768.095.11 Year 8 $41.970.72 $52.793.502.941.470.592.592.510.12 ($16.921.845.417.716.095.134.40 $10.355.895.64 ($8.43 $102.36) $173.592.80) ($14.136.823.059.825.83 84 .40 $10.547.306.

385.936.120.939) FALSE Year 3 $19.327 Year 6 $33.448.377 ($9.050) $5.822 $55.381.781) ($33.536.Payback Period Table 16 .851.53199599 Year 1 $10.160835902 $31.700.597) $9.440.065 Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($5.971 $19.674) 3.738.663.322. 2006) (Luciano.050) $10.821.150) Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.341) $36.672.377 ($47.781) ($5.560.236658937 ($14.911.381.385.010.971 ($48.971 ($9.208.041 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 5 $28.992.781) ($28.080.495 6.440.252 1.060.440 ($9.440 ($48.618 85 . AAA Revenue.503 ($52.846 ($8.788) N/A Year 1 $10.306.674) ($74.781) ($23.352.020.908 ($9.793.768.810.917.53199599 Year 3 $19. 2006) (Henry.503 $15.134.448.179.117.095.236658937 $11.793.718.781) ($6.050) $15.781) ($18.846 Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows ($15.050) $19.176) ($19.363) 3.100) ($6.781) ($5.327.781) Net incremental cash flow ($5.322.841.198.852.061.291) ($41.852.390 ($127.908 $28.027.795 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($19.380 6.704.872) $59.597) 1.767. 2006) (Luciano.050) $24.828.950470057 Year 4 $24.911.752) Years ($3.176.029.198.596 $28.659 $18.381.302. 2006) (Perez.377 $33.598) Years Year 2 $15.921 ($103.781) ($5.Payback Period Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.811) FALSE Year 4 $24.593 Years Year 2 $15.412.644.326.215) ($160. 2006) #N/A Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 $10.984.440.976 $88.809) $17. (Gomez and Morera.386.242.381.846 ($47.322.440 $24.852.858 ($145.484.426.128 $23.781) ($14.935) Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($41.908 ($48.911.788) $3.793.853.503 ($30.404) Year 6 $33.663.066. Datamatic.191 $13.

964.592 $10.503 Year 9 $41.160 Year 6 $33.716.703.754 Year 3 $19.095 Year 9 $41.995) ($68.875.510.758.095 Total $295.503 $52.805) Year 7 $37.684.137 ($57.503 ($22.524) Year 8 $41.716.060 Year 8 $41.503 Total $295.417.050 Year 7 $37.503 Year 10 $41.255) $28.217) $17.405.541.592 $10.510.793.217) $22.386 Year 7 $37.314 ($9.018.895.970.217) $12.193.327.314 ($12.592 $10.716.793.291 $274.823.407) Year 2 $15.592 $10.095 Total $295.Total incremental inflows Total incremental outflows Net incremental cash flow Year 1 $10.217) $26.653) Years $8.470.016.223 Year 4 $24.900) ($16.503 $52.793.196 $221.941) ($16.805) ($173.322.614.716.989.750) $274.762.510.443) 86 .503 $52.724.940) Year 8 $41.442.101 $169.793.193.793.793.407) 2.510.592 $10.137 ($21.823.793.440 ($7.716.346.255) ($13.592 $10.793.643.503 $52.212.090) ($121.467.629 Cell is named: "Yr1CumCF" Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow Payback Period: ($11.592 $10.911.149.793.823.405.054.510.314 ($51.716.592 $10.503 $52.908 ($7.261 6.137 ($312.649.970.570 2.649.095 Year 10 $41.793.503 $52.213.217) $7.095 Year 10 $41.910) ($11.440.506.716.971 ($7.381.970.421 $74.691 Year 5 $28.852.377 ($6.638.716.385.716.643443217 $48.386 $116.846 ($6.845.292628695 ($3.869.510.292628695 $25.592 $10.970.095 Year 9 $41.

790 $52.547.510.959 $102.503 $52.592 $10.503 $52.716.095 $238.598 $238.431.137 ($35.510.503 $52.769 $207.355.422.793.691) $27.510.178) $259.970.921.592 $10.510.095 $52.693 $80.864 $259.793.095 Total $295.941.095 $52.510.716.592 $10.510.881.693 Year 7 $37.$25.793.823.673 $154.314 ($10.825.355.716.845.623 Year 8 $41.408 $133.335.941.959 87 .124.095 Year 9 $41.503 $185.095 Year 10 $41.411.

(Luciano.718.503 Total $295.846 ($5.314 ($9.302. 10 years: 1281. AAA Revenue."N/A") 88 ."N/A") Year 7 $37.793."N/A") Simple ROI.781) ($6.716.970.781) Simple ROI.793.426.4% =IF(SUM(H13:J13)<>0.Return on Investment .322.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:L13))).503 $15.377 Total incremental outflows ($15.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0. 3 years: 62.010.(SUM(H12:J12)+SUM(H13:J13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:J13))).2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:L13)<>0. 7 years: 217.793.716.716.992.440 $24.908 $28.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H13:N13)<>0. 2006) (Luciano.781) ($5.137 ($21.417.134.(SUM(H12:L12)+SUM(H13:L13))/(1*(SUM(H13:L13))).Datamatic Calculated using information received from Miguel Luciano and internal PRASA cost data. Datamatic.381.750) Year 6 $33.793.503 Year 10 $41.212.440.255) Year 8 $41.592 $10.823.781) ($5. 5 years: 151.592 $10."N/A") Simple ROI.(SUM(H12:N12)+SUM(H13:N13))/(-1*(SUM(H13:N13))).592 $10.781) Simple ROI.503 Year 9 $41.911.971 $19.100) ($6. 2006) Datamatic Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.Return on Investment (ROI) Datamatic Table 17 .852.

941) Year 6 $33.716..5% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(H26:L26)<>0.440.592 $10.716.314 ($51. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Badger/AMCO Total incremental inflows $10.179. (Gomez and Morera.381.823.255) Year 8 $41.781) Simple ROI.120."N/A") 89 .793. 2006) (Perez. 3 years: -69. 2006) (Luciano.970."N/A") Year 7 $37.377 Total incremental outflows ($52."N/A") Simple ROI.440 $24.(SUM(H25:N25)+SUM(H26:N26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:N26))).793.536.781) ($47."N/A") Simple ROI.503 Year 10 $41.016.(SUM(H25:Q25)+SUM(H26:Q26))/(1*(SUM(H26:Q26))).503 Year 9 $41.716.2% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:Q26)<>0.592 $10.291) ($48.908 $28.793.412.781) ($48.(SUM(H25:J25)+SUM(H26:J26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:J26))).137 ($312.4% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(H26:N26)<>0.781) Simple ROI. 7 years: -50. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.971 $19.852.704.614.Badger/AMCO Table 18 .503 Total $295. 5 years: -59.2% =IF(SUM(H26:J26)<>0. 10 years: -5.Return on Investment .322.781) ($48.846 ($47.(SUM(H25:L25)+SUM(H26:L26))/(-1*(SUM(H26:L26))).911.828.592 $10.793.503 $15.Badger/AMCO Calculated using information received from BadgerMeters Inc. AAA Revenue.

443) Year 6 $33.440.592 $10.793.Badger/Badger Calculated using information received from BadgerMeter Inc.137 ($57.352.Badger/Badger Table 19 .314 ($12.(SUM(I38:K38)+SUM(I39:K39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:K39))).377 Total incremental outflows ($30.793.050) ($9.845. 2006) Badger/Badger Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.381.970."N/A") Simple ROI. and internal PRASA cost data (Luciano.793.592 $10.524) Year 8 $41.936. 2006) (Gomez and Morera.911.503 Year 9 $41. 5 years: 160.467.050) Simple ROI.Return on Investment .(SUM(I38:O38)+SUM(I39:O39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:O39))). 3 years: 105.322.(SUM(I38:R38)+SUM(I39:R39))/(1*(SUM(I39:R39))).7% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I39:M39)<>0.852.644.8% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:R39)<>0.503 Year 10 $41.716.846 ($8.503 Total $295.050) Simple ROI.793. AAA Revenue. 7 years: 313.503 $15. 10 years: 585.592 $10.9% =IF(SUM(I39:K39)<>0.050) ($9.050) ($9."N/A") Year 7 $37."N/A") Simple ROI.823.716.716.(SUM(I38:M38)+SUM(I39:M39))/(-1*(SUM(I39:M39))).176) ($9.060."N/A") 90 .908 $28.0% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I39:O39)<>0.242.440 $24.971 $19.768.

691) Year 8 $41.137 ($35.(SUM(I51:O51)+SUM(I52:O52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:O52))).971 $19.(SUM(I51:M51)+SUM(I52:M52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:M52))).442.911. (Luciano.908 $28.638.217) ($7.762.346."N/A") Simple ROI.910) ($7.592 $10.2% =IF(SUM(I52:K52)<>0.6% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:O52)<>0.Return on Investment .217) ($7. 3 years: 170.ITRON/AMCO Table 20 .503 Total $295.793.503 Year 9 $41.054.440 $24.503 Year 10 $41.217) Simple ROI. 7 years: 475.823."N/A") Simple ROI.503 $15.322.440.217) Year 7 $37.470.592 $10.314 ($10.(SUM(I51:K51)+SUM(I52:K52))/(-1*(SUM(I52:K52))).377 Total incremental outflows ($22.(SUM(I51:R51)+SUM(I52:R52))/(1*(SUM(I52:R52))).716.716."N/A") 91 .547. 5 years: 245.178) Simple ROI. AAA Revenue.381. 2006) (Henry.793.846 ($6.970.716.ITRON/AMCO Calculated using information received from ITRON. 2006) (Perez.217) ($6. 10 years: 1077."N/A") Year 6 $33.793. AMCO and internal PRASA cost data.6% Formula for ROI cell G18: =IF(SUM(I52:M52)<>0.881.793.7% Formula for ROI cell G21: =IF(SUM(I52:R52)<>0.852.592 $10. 2006) ITRON Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total incremental inflows $10.

841.208.386.341) Year 4 (23.629 Year 1 (11.7% #N/A Year 6 24.128 23. 2006) (Luciano.809) Year 3 (28.788) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 (33.9% #N/A Year 6 26. 2006) (Perez.506.851.921 Year 3 10.917.560.691 Year 5 22. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5. 2006) (Luciano.149.407) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 7.385.223 Year 4 17.872) Year 5 (18.381.674) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Year 2 5.738.3% 92 .327 64.754 Year 3 12.327. (Gomez and Morera.795 Year 1 (19.596 28. Datamatic.858 Year 5 19.935) Year 1 (41.Internal Rate of Return Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.191 13.663.306.970.029.672.659 18.020. AAA Revenue.4% #N/A Year 6 (14.065 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 216.484.404) -1.597) 9.390 Year 4 15.448.095.160 105.Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Table 21 .649.198.684. 2006) (Henry.

193.095 Year 9 52.940 Year 8 52.095 Total 259.643.095 Total (16.095 Year 9 52.510.959 93 .758.095 Year 10 52.510.510.510.Year 7 28.405.510.805) Year 7 25.510.060 Year 8 52.095 Total 274.386 Year 7 13.510.510.355.510.095 Year 10 52.095 Year 10 52.623 Year 8 52.941.095 Year 9 52.095 Year 9 52.124.510.790 Year 8 52.422.510.095 Total 238.693 Year 7 27.510.095 Year 10 52.

381.703 10.274) 6.023 9.087 17.149.801) Year 1 (19.691 12.934.095.351.037 9.046 13.390 (17.738.065 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (4. 2006) (Luciano. Datamatic.386.005.917.701 14.935) Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (37.404) 18.213.714 10.595 12.839 (4.795 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (17.886 16.596 28.583) Year 1 (11.020.454.725.543.306.167 14.448. 2006) (Luciano.560. AAA Revenue.788) 7.138) Year 3 10.597) 9.064 Year 3 12.809) 10.807) (16.399.638 (11.067.452.342 Year 4 (23.665) Year 6 24.028 Year 3 (28. (Gomez and Morera.459.998) 7.558 Year 2 (33.396.747.298 Year 2 7.208.851.649.969) (11.467) (39.354) Year 4 15.341) 13.623.588.696 Year 6 (14.854.582.023 94 .029.684.412.872) 15.752. 2006) (Henry.841.746.484.044.385.824) Year 2 5.369.160 16.110 11.669.001 7.443 12.921 (22.612) 4.265.Net Present Value Calculated using information received from all meter companies and internal PRASA cost data.272) (21.179.674) (28.752.327 (9.506.835.647 Year 4 17.610 Year 6 26.680.327.433.629 Discounted Cash Flow Stream Discounted Cash Flow Stream (10.Net Present Value (NPV) Table 22 .746.818.539) Year 5 19.663.457.293.223 10.370) 6.865 (18.191 13.112 15.661.564.219) (8.735 Year 5 22.821 Year 5 (18.198. 2006) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (5.659 18.444) (27.669.424.407) 4. 2006) (Perez.107.927.590.128 23.668) Year 1 (41.148 17.907.858 (12.766.319.754 8.956.672.575.319.970.505.724 12.326.

814) (8.492 18.374 Year 8 52.638 34.885.510.033 Year 10 52.255.095 32.313) Year 7 25.033 Year 9 52.510.805) NPV (34.604.638 34.758.040.638 34.095 32.095 32.941.638 34.196.095 32.196.961 Year 7 27.510.033 Year 9 52.196.181.623 17.196.033 Year 9 52.196.196.196.196.701.510.033 Year 10 52.604.604.638 34.471.095 32.124.638 34.510.095 32.095 32.332.703.033 Year 10 52.196.033 Year 10 52.767.510.095 32.106 NPV 152.033 Year 8 52.831 Total 259.510.196.095 32.693 NPV 145.728.940 (8.292 17.196.817 95 .638 34.095 32.638 34.856.604.Year 7 28.790 15.386 NPV 173.033 Total 274.600.510.604.095 32.922 Total (16.361.638 34.959 NPV 162.047 Year 7 13.095 32.510.355.510.604.079) NPV (35.604.604.638 34.510.638 34.518 16.604.881.033 Year 9 52.405.604.510.193.604.643.604.060 17.647 NPV 182.858.027.638 34.033 Year 8 52.552 NPV 170.196.033 Year 8 52.422.536) Total 238.

000.000 $50.000.000) ($30.000 $20.000.000.000.000 $10.000.000) 1 2 3 4 5 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 23 .000 $30.000.000.000) ($20.000 $40.000 $0 ($10.000.000.000.Net Incremental Cash Flow $60.Net Incremental Cash Flow 96 .000) ($40.000) ($50.

00 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON 1 ($50.000.00) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $50.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 $100.00 ($100.000.000.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow 97 .00) ($200.000.000.00 $200.000.00 $250.Cumulative Incremental Cash Flow $300.000.000.00) Years Figure 24 .000.000.000.000.000.00) ($150.00 $150.00 $0.000.

000.000.000.000.00 $150.00) 1 2 3 4 5 Years 6 7 8 9 10 Datamatic Badger/AMCO Badger/Badger ITRON Figure 25 .000.000.00 $250.Cumulative Cash Flow 98 .000.000.000.00 ($50.Cumulative Cash Flow AMR systems Less Current System $300.000.00 $50.00) ($200.00 $200.000.00) ($150.000.000.000.00) ($100.00 $0.000.00 $100.000.000.000.000.000.

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

there is to be an expected increase of 38% over the new October rates.600 Pumping Stations. government or independent.000 km of sewer lines. (Andres Garcia. that work on the water system on the island of Puerto Rico (Pridco. 2006. the water rates increased by 68%. personal communication. 1. 1. 60 waste water treatment plants. 1.The Puerto Rican Water and Sewer Authority has an annual budget of US $700.000. 6.200 km of water lines. 2/3/2006) There are no other departments. and in July of 2006.3 million clients and 1. Water). 100 . 2/10/2006) In October 2005.3 million water meters. personal communication. (Andres Garcia.000. PRASA has numerous facilities throughout Puerto Rico that consist of: 134 filtration plants.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful