Gary Wyeth
Senior Consultant
Isle Utilities
Bio
Abstract
Gary Wyeth
Chief Executive Officer
Wyeth Water Consultants
Senior Consultant
Isle Utilities
Mr Wyeth graduated from Portsmouth University in 1991 with a Master of Engineering Degree in Civil Engineering.
He has 30 years’ experience in the water industry, with 26 of those years whilst working in South-East Asia. During this period Mr Wyeth has gained member status of the CIWEM (UK), is a Chartered Engineer, has gained a Graduate Diploma in International Operational Management and is the current Secretary of the IWA Water Loss Specialist Group
Mr Wyeth Started his career as a network modeling engineer for Biwater International and through this built up an expertise in how water supply systems operate. He then moved into NRW management, with Thames Water International and Ranhill Water Systems, gaining further expertise in leakage control, DMZ design & implementation, system monitoring, customer metering and production metering.
He also established the APAC regional office for i2O Water, specialists in advanced pressure management, where he was APAC managing director for 4 years. He further improved his experience of pressure management whilst managing the regional office for Singer Valves, a manufacturer of pressure control valves.
He is currently the Managing Director of Wyeth Water Consultants a Malaysian based NRW Management Company.
Speaker Session:
Conference Topic: Leakage Management Benchmarking – A Comparison of Utility Performance, Investment, and Best Practices
Workshop Topic: Pressure Management
Leakage Management Benchmarking – A Comparison of Utility Performance, Investment, and Best Practices
Gary Wyeth
Senior Consultant
Isle Utilities
Executive Summary
Utilities face many leakage management challenges including (1) accurately assessing non-revenue water (NRW) balance, (2) determining investment levels for each of the four leakage management pillars, and (3) deciding how that investment is best utilised within each pillar. To address this, Isle Utilities ran a Leakage Management Benchmarking program with 27 utilities (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Brazil, UK - including Thames Water, United Utilities and Severn Trent, Italy), for the purpose of analysing leakage performance, investment in leakage management, and determining industry best practices. A key theme for Australian utilities was a need to more objectively assess performance against each leakage pillar for better targeting of investments.
Introduction
For many years, utilities have faced a number of significant challenges with regards to leakage management. This includes challenges with (1) accurately assessing where water goes in the non-revenue water (NRW) balance (see Figure 1), (2) determining investment levels for each of the four leakage management pillars (pressure management, active leakage control, speed and quality of repairs, and asset management) (see Figure 2), and (3) deciding how that investment is best utilised within each of the pillars. In addition to these challenges, utilities are facing increased scrutiny from economic regulators, customers, and utility boards, to prove that effective leakage management practices are in place and that performance is being measured objectively.
As a result, utilities are constantly seeking out the next innovation for minimising water leakage and have a desire to access industry leading practices in network management, technology, and customer management. Utilities have also recognised the need for customised improvement pathways based on performance gaps and challenges that are specific to each individual utility.
To address this, in 2020 and 2021 Isle Utilities ran a Leakage Management Benchmarking program for the purpose of analysing leakage performance, investment in leakage management and determining industry best practices. The program involved 23 utilities from around the world:
-
- Australia: Barwon Water, City West Water, City of Gold Coast, Hunter Water, ICON Water, Melbourne Water, SA Water, South East Water, Sydney Water, Unitywater, Urban Utilities, and Yarra Valley Water.
- New Zealand: Watercare;
- Brazil: Aegea
- UK: Affinity Water, Anglian Water, Bristol Water, Northern Ireland Water, Severn Trent Water, Thames Water, United Utilities, and Yorkshire Water
- Italy: ACEA.
The program was ran again in 2022, and 2023 with 2 more utilities from the UK and 2 from Malaysia joining the group:
-
- UK: Northumbrian Water and Essex and Suffolk Water
- Malaysia: Air Selangor and Ranhill SAJ
Each of these utilities were assessed individually and with comparison to their peers. From a significant volume of qualitative and quantitative data, improvement initiatives were developed for each utility and best practices were shared.
Some key themes that emerged for Australian utilities included: (1) most utilities generally had not looked objectively at their performance in each leakage management pillar to determine where they could get the most out of their investments; and (2) pressure management has been an area of relatively little focus to Australian utilities, in comparison to their UK peers.
Highlights
-
- We ran a Leakage Benchmarking study with 27 utilities from Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Brazil, UK and Italy
- We compared leakage performance, investment, and leakage management best practices
- Each utility has unique circumstances affecting which strategies are most effective
- Australian utilities have invested significantly less in pressure management than their UK peers
- Australian utilities typically have lower real losses than other international utilities
Process
Benchmarking
Each utility completed a quantitative data collection pack to determine their NRW balance (see Figure 1) and associated data relevant to performance within each of the four leakage management pillars (see Figure 2). This included (but was not limited to) information about the size of utility and number of assets (for normalising data across utilities of different sizes), operational use of water (e.g. due to mains flushing), fire-fighting, theft, metering inaccuracies, losses by asset class (e.g. transmission mains, distribution mains, service connections), network pressures and pressure management devices, methods for leak identification, response and repair times for fixing leaks and bursts, pipe material and age data, and investment data. The data was then analysed and used to compare the utilities (anonymously) to their peers and develop areas for improvement.
Best practices
In addition to the quantitative benchmarking, each utility was interviewed individually to determine the challenges and leakage practices that make that utility unique. From these interviews, leakage management best practices were identified.
Collaborative workshop
A series of virtual workshops were held to share key themes with all international participants and share best practices. Utilities which excelled in a particular area were able to present to their peers how they have achieved great performance.
Outcomes
From approximately 4,000 datapoints and interviews with 27 utilities, some general themes emerged, including: (1) Australian utilities typically had lower real losses than international peers; (2) most Australian utilities use IWA assumptions for determining NRW balance while UK utilities are required by the regulator to develop their own internal numbers; (3) most Australian utilities had not looked holistically and objectively at their performance within each leakage management pillar to determine where they could get the most benefit from their investments; and (4) UK utilities have a significantly higher degree of pressure management assets, technology, and expertise that Australian utilities could learn from; (5) Although the Malaysian utilities had higher levels of NRW, they were more advanced in terms of the technology being used and the level of manpower utilised. From the utility interviews, over forty (40) leakage management best practices were identified and shared among the peer group.
Conclusion
Utilities face many challenges in assessing the NRW balance and determining where investment should be focused. Through the Leakage Management Benchmarking program’s 27 participants, we have determined key improvement initiatives for the utilities and developed a comprehensive set of industry-leading best practices for leakage management. These advances in industry knowledge have improved the leakage management capabilities of the program participants and have the opportunity to further increase the wider water industry.