|
|
|
|
|
Français | |
Contact Us | |
Help | |
Search | |
Canada Site | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home | |
Site Map | |
What's New | |
About Us | |
Registration |
|
 Measurement Canada
Sector Review
Water
Consultation
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Water Trade Sector Review Minutes - Winnipeg
To access any of the PDF documents included in this page, please use this free Adobe Acrobat Reader as needed.
Comments and Discussions: A stakeholder asked how Measurement Canada, as a Special Operating Agency, is funded. Mr. Vinet responded that the federal government funds Measurement Canada on an appropriation basis. Any revenues that Measurement Canada generates, as a result of fees charged for services provided, go directly to the Receiver General of Canada (general revenue). A participant asked: “What does the acronym ICI mean?”. Mr. Welsh responded that it stands for Industrial Commercial and Institutional customers and/or meters. One participant asked: “What will the incentive be to use a water meter if Measurement Canada is going to introduce regulations for the testing and retesting of water meters?”. Mr. Welsh replied that the water utilities will have to decide whether or not it is feasible to use water meters based on their own individual economic cost/benefit analysis. Another stakeholder asked if new water meter regulations could be viewed as a deterrent to using a water meter. Mr. Welsh responded that it would still be up to an individual utility or municipality to decide whether or not to use water meters. Mr. Welsh acknowledged the potential inequity that exists if water meters are not used but he reiterated that Measurement Canada has neither the legislative authority nor intent to mandate the mandatory use of water meters in Canada. A stakeholder wanted to know if it meant that water utilities were going to have to test their water meters. He also wanted to know why Measurement Canada was now interested in water meters and was it a result of receiving many consumer complaints. Mr. Welsh explained that the water industry was one of eight trade sectors reviews that either has been completed or soon will be completed. Measurement Canada does receive complaints about water utility meters but the number is relatively low when considering the large number of water meters in-service in Canada. Mr. Welsh explained that water meter testing will be the primary topic that the WTSR team will discuss with the meeting participants. One participant asked whether or not the water sector is unique in that the use of a measuring device is not universal and a large segment of this industry charges a flat rate for a service/product provided. Mr. Welsh replied that while this scenario does occur in some other trade sectors, it is not as widespread as it is in the water trade sector. He added that the majority of water utilities in Canada do use water meters to bill residential and/or ICI customers. A stakeholder wanted to know what Measurement Canada’s intentions are for the establishing of requirements for water meters. Mr. Welsh replied that any requirements will be dependent on the wishes of a consensus of stakeholders and the agreement of the vulnerable parties within the trade sector. A participant asked what are the time lines that can be expected if the recommendations put forward in the previous five meetings are accepted and implemented. Mr. Welsh explained that he expected that the implementation process would probably take place in stages over a period of one to two years. If changes to legislation is needed, he expected the changes would take two to five years. Various phase-in times for different requirements could also be expected. A stakeholder wanted to know whether or not the water trade sector review would necessitate any changes to the Weights and Measures Act. Mr. Welsh replied that the need for changes to the Weights and Measures Act would depend on the final recommendations. Mr. Welsh briefly provided background on the differences between specifications, regulations and the Weights and Measures Act as it applies to Measurement Canada. A stakeholder asked about the importance of wastewater as it pertains to the Water Trade Sector Review. Mr. Welsh replied that discussions with municipal authorities have shown that the use of wastewater meters, for billing purposes, is not common in Canada. Customer billing wastewater meters will be addressed during the implementation stage of the sector review. Another stakeholder stated that while wastewater is metered, the product is not homogenous and the properties of the wastewater will affect the fee that is charged for processing it. Mr. Welsh acknowledged that this product was harder to measure than water. He also gave examples of other trade sectors where the quantity of a commodity is measured and the total charges for the product sold/purchased or service provided are also based on the quality or composition of the item. Quite often a sample is taken from the load and then tested to determine the quality or composition of the product. A stakeholder asked: “Are we going to police ourselves if regulation for water meters are put in place? ” Mr. Welsh explained that the WTSR process will address these type of questions. Another participant asked if temperature correction is an issue in water metering. Mr. Welsh replied that the WTSR team’s research has shown that temperature correction is not currently an issue. In the future this issue may be of greater importance. Mr. Welsh also explained that this review was only looking at meters that were used to buy or sell water and not any devices that were used for the sale of energy that is derived from hot water or steam. Option consommateur Presentation: The Option consommateur presentation was delivered by Ms. Geneviève Reed:
Comments and Discussions: A stakeholder asked if consumers had indicated what level of Measurement Canada intervention they wanted in regards to water meters. Ms. Reed responded that consumers were not directly asked what level of intervention is needed for water meters, but the results of the national survey indicated that the vast majority of respondents wanted national regulations for water meters in Canada. Another participant asked if consumers were informed that a water meter is used as a management tool as well as a measurement device. Ms. Reed replied that consumers were not given this information. A stakeholder asked why consumers were informed that there were no water meter regulations, when in fact the American Water and Wastewater Association (AWWA) standard is a kind of regulation. Mr. Welsh responded by stating that the AWWA standard is not a regulation unless it is has been designated as such by a governmental body. He added that the AWWA standard is a voluntary standard which individual utilities may or may not follow. A participant questioned whether consumers were asked how much they were willing to pay for regulations. Ms. Reed replied that consumers were not directly asked how much they were willing to pay for any additional costs the utility may incur in following any new regulations. The consumers in the focus groups were aware that regulation would cost something and they were in favour of a slight increase in costs provided that the increase was not large. Another participant asked if there were national regulations in the United States (US). Mr. Welsh replied that there were no mandatory federal regulations, but at the state and local level there is a “mish-mash” of regulations for water meters. Discussions and Recommendations Recommendations: The following recommendations were derived through consensus. This implies that the vast majority of stakeholders who attended the meeting agreed with the stated recommendations. There may continue to be stakeholders who would have preferred a different recommendation. Recommendations from the previous meetings in Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax were made available to the Winnipeg meeting participants. The recommendations in these minutes are from the Winnipeg meeting only and they may not reflect the final recommendations that are sent to Measurement Canada’s Senior Management Committee. The final recommendations will be a compilation of the recommendations from all six (6) stakeholder consultation meetings. 1. Approvals Recommendation 1.1 Measurement Canada is to require that all customer billing or custody transfer water meters, used by water utilities, must be type approved (including updates and revisions) before they can be used in trade. This would apply at all levels of trade on the condition that it is not overly onerous or too costly. This recommendation is consistent with the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meeting recommendations. Recommendation 1.2 The type approval process is to include provisions for evaluating a prototype water meter to ensure that it meets the applicable standard. This recommendation is also consistent with the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meeting recommendations. Recommendation 1.3 The type approval process is to only apply to new water meter prototypes that are submitted for approval after a certain date (to be determined). Existing water meter models used in trade will continue to be exempt from the type approval process. This recommendation is consistent with the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meeting recommendations. Recommendation 1.4 Measurement Canada is to form a joint working group, with representation from all applicable stakeholders, that will establish the details of the requirements for the type approval of water meters. Again, this is consistent with the recommendation from the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meeting. Comments and Discussions: A participant correctly pointed out that when discussing the type approval process there should be a distinction made between “testing” and “evaluating”. For the purposes of type approval, “testing” pertains to the extensive testing and gathering of data on the performance attributes of a given model of meter. The term “evaluating” refers to the analysis of performance data and other characteristics to see if the prototype meter complies with pertinent specifications and regulatory requirements for that type of meter. Stakeholders agreed that Measurement Canada should not necessarily be the only device approval laboratory that conducts approval testing. Other authorized locations could be acceptable if they meet the established standard. Measurement Canada oversight would be required and Measurement Canada would be the organization that would make the final evaluation as to whether or not a given water meter is approved for use in trade in Canada. Only Measurement Canada would have the authority to grant an approval. If the stakeholders recommend that water meters used in Canada require approval then Measurement Canada should ensure that the Notice of Approvals will be made available on the Measurement Canada website. This would give the utilities an opportunity to know what models are approved before they purchase them from a meter manufacturer or sales representative. Mr. Welsh explained that most of the major manufacturers are familiar with the Measurement Canada approvals system because their organizations have previous experience with the approval of electricity, natural gas or petroleum measuring devices. Approval testing or evaluation in other jurisdictions could be considered if the method of testing or method of evaluating met the established requirements. A stakeholder asked Measurement Canada whether another approval is needed if they modify an approved device. Mr. Welsh explained that the original approval would need to be revised if the modification could affect the accuracy or use of the device. Minor changes would simply require that the manufacturer or applicant notify the Measurement Canada Approval Laboratory. A stakeholder asked: “If an approval process was put in place, could a European manufactured water meter be used in Canada?”. Mr. Welsh responded that any meter, regardless of where it was built, could be used in Canada provided the device met the Canadian requirements and it had been granted a Notice of Approval by Measurement Canada. He also reiterated that if Canadian requirements are established, they must be such that they don’t pose a barrier to international and North American trade agreements. Mr. Welsh confirmed that Australia had chosen residential meters, as the initial device type for revocation of the Weights & Measures exemption, because residential consumers have the least ability to protect themselves. As was mentioned at the other meetings, meter manufacturers stated that they are concerned with the uncertainty as to what the standards or specifications will be for water meter approval testing in Canada. A stakeholder asked if the water meters are explicitly exempt under Measurement Canada legislation. Mr. Welsh replied that section 4(a) of the Weights and Measures Regulations only exempts water meters from approval and initial testing. He also specified that the Weights and Measures Act requires that all sellers of a commodity must deliver the purported quantity to the purchaser. A participant asked if tests can be done in either US or imperial gallons. Mr. Welsh replied that US gallons are not a legal unit of measurement for trade transactions in Canada. In Canada, the legal units of measure are Canadian (Imperial) or SI (metric). Water meters that register in cubic feet would therefore be acceptable. 2. Initial Inspection Recommendation 2.1 Measurement Canada is to require that all customer billing or custody transfer water meters, used by water utilities, pass a mandatory initial inspection before being used in trade. This should apply at all levels of trade. This recommendation is consistent with the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meeting recommendations. Recommendation 2.2 Initial inspections may be performed by recognized and authorized organizations provided they meet established requirements. Initial inspections could be done at any recognized location (ex. factory, utility, service company or in-situ) as long as the devices comply to all established requirements before being used in trade. This recommendation is also consistent with that from the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meetings. The wording has been changed to indicate that initial inspections could be conducted at any recognized location. An additional point to this recommendation is that a separate model for alternative service delivery should be considered for the water sector and that the existing accreditation and registration programs may not be a good fit for this sector. Recommendation 2.3 The requirement for initial inspection should only apply to new water meters. Water meters already in-service will be exempt from the initial inspection requirement. This recommendation is consistent with the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meeting recommendation. Recommendation 2.4 Municipalities or water utilities should be responsible for the inspection of the installation of water meters. Measurement Canada should work with the water industry to establish standard requirements for the installation of water meters at all levels of trade. The industry is to follow manufacturer specifications, local plumbing codes and any other requirements needed to ensure the meter is measuring accurately. This recommendation, although similar to the five previous meetings, includes installation requirements for residential water meters. Recommendation 2.5 Measurement Canada is to form a joint working group, with representation from all applicable stakeholders, to establish the details of the initial inspection requirements. A joint working group approach should also be used to establish the installation requirements. The joint working group should perform a cost/benefit analysis when establishing the details of the initial inspection requirements. This recommendation, is similar to the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal recommendations in that Measurement Canada should form a joint working group to establish initial inspection and installation requirements. At the Winnipeg meeting, stakeholders added the cost/benefit analysis proposal to the recommendation. Comments and Discussions: Participants at the meeting agreed that meter manufacturers will probably conduct the majority of water meter initial inspections. They also believe that a water utility or 3rd party organization should be allowed to perform initial inspections provided that the established requirements are met. A stakeholder expressed concern that the utility would be forced to test every meter before they are installed even if that meter had already been tested by the meter manufacturer. Mr. Welsh explained that the meter would only have to be tested/inspected on one occasion. Some utilities are free to continue their practice of conducting in-coming inspections on some of the meters that they purchase from the manufacturer. The stakeholders at the meeting all agreed that the use of a statistically valid sample testing was acceptable and this option should be considered. Stakeholders agreed that the incorrect installation of ICI meters can have a huge impact on accurate measurement. This fact was also mentioned in the previous meetings. It was agreed that the manufacturer’s installation requirements should be the minimum requirements for the installation of ICI meters. All stakeholders recognized that there could be additional costs if the initial inspection requirement is overly onerous or different from existing meter calibration/testing. As in previous meetings, meter manufacturers expressed their concerns about the cost of the initial inspection and the fact that any additional costs would be passed on to the water utilities. Their concern was mainly caused by the fact they did not know what the new requirements would be. Their concerns would be lessened if the initial inspection procedure was in-line with the current procedure they use for the calibration and testing of a new water meter. A participant raised the question of what would be done if the water meter was installed incorrectly. Mr. Welsh replied, that as the seller of the water, the water utility is ultimately responsible to ensure that the meter is installed correctly and accurate measurement is occurring. 3. Re-verification Inspections Recommendation 3.1 Measurement Canada is to require that all customer billing or custody transfer water meters, used by water utilities, be subjected to a mandatory re-verification inspection. This recommendation is to apply to all meter sizes and types of water meters. This recommendation is consistent with the recommendations from the Edmonton, Toronto and Vancouver meetings. The stakeholders in the Montreal and Halifax meetings believe residential meters, in locations where water charges are low, should be looked at differently. Special considerations for utilities with low residential water rates was not recommended at the Winnipeg meeting. Recommendation 3.2 Re-verification inspections may be performed by recognized or authorized organizations provided they meet the established requirements. Re-verification inspections could be conducted at any recognized location (ex. water utility meter shops, meter manufacturer test facilities, or 3rd party meter service organizations). Where it applies, re-verification inspections could also be conducted in-situ. This recommendation is consistent with the Halifax, Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal meeting recommendations. Recommendation 3.3 Measurement Canada is to form a joint working group, with representation from all applicable stakeholders, to establish the details of the re-verification inspection requirements. This will include re-verification periods, sampling plans, and the option to re-verify or replace meters. The requirement for re-verification inspections should:
This recommendation is also similar to the previous five meetings, but the joint working group is provided with some factors that they must take into consideration when re-verification requirements are established. At the Winnipeg meeting, special considerations for utilities with low residential water rates was not recommended. Measurement Canada should consider sustainable alternatives to the existing accreditation and registration programs for meter re-verification in the water sector. Comments and Discussions: Stakeholders recommended that re-verification inspections could be done via sample testing. The meters could stay in service if the sample test results were acceptable. It was agreed that the larger the size of water meter, the greater the need for an earlier re-verification inspection. It was noted that sampling may not be an option for small utilities since they may have a small number of meters due for re-verification in any given year. A stakeholder asked what would be the length of time that a group of meters could be left in service if a sample of those meters were found to have a compliance rate of 100 percent. For example, could they be left in service with no further testing for a period equal to the initial re-verification period. Mr. Welsh responded that these are areas that the joint working group would decide on and stakeholders would have input on these types of decisions. Some participants expressed their belief that mandatory re-verification inspections may drive some municipalities to introduce a flat rate price structure or to abandon water metering for residential services. This will be exacerbated if the cost of the re-verification program far outweighs the increase in revenues that the municipality derives from the introduction of the program. Ms. Reed believes that the vast majority of residential customers are unaware of how accurate their water meter is measuring. The consumer’s expectation is that the meter in their house is measuring accurately and they would not be happy to know that their neighbour’s meter could be possibly under registering by a significant amount. A participant put forward his opinion that perhaps re-verification is not a regulatory issue but it is more of a local issue. He was in favour of mandatory re-verification but he also felt that it should be up to the local municipality to set up the criteria for how often the meters should be tested. The criteria would be influenced by the feedback received from the utility’s customers. A similar concept was raised by a participant at the Halifax meeting. Most participants at the Winnipeg meeting felt that this proposal was neither feasible nor sustainable when applied on a country wide basis. The stakeholders were asked for their opinion, whether or not, special consideration should be given to municipalities which have extremely low water and/or sewer rates and water use meters. Special consideration would still make re-verification mandatory but the time periods and in-service meter tolerances may be more liberal. The overwhelming consensus from the stakeholders at the Winnipeg meeting was that no special consideration should be given. They believe that all municipalities that use water meters should be treated the same. One stakeholder remarked that municipalities that choose to have extremely low water rates and do not use water consumption to determine sewer charges, should probably not be using water meters. A stakeholder asked if a meter would require re-verification if that meter was not subject to the type approval process (either grandfathered or exempt). Mr. Welsh replied that it was possible that a meter could be exempt from the approval process but still require re-verification. The meter would have to measure within the prescribed limits of error for that type of device. The stakeholders indicated that they want re-verification periods that are set based on time and/or volume. The consensus on this matter was that there should be mandatory re-verifications for water meters in Canada. This decision was contingent on the need for extensive consultation with all stakeholders on the details developed by the joint working group prior to the implementation of any mandatory re-verification inspection requirements. A stakeholder indicated that a problem exists when old meters are thrown out before they are tested. When this occurs, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not the meter was measuring accurately when in-service.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
| Created: 2005-08-04 Updated: 2005-12-02 |
 Top of Page |
Important Notices
|
||