Next Article in Journal
Spatial Distribution of Heavy Metals in the Water of Tequesquitengo Lake, Morelos, Mexico, and Their Biosorption by Pectin
Previous Article in Journal
A Bayesian Ensemble Learning-Based Scheme for Real-Time Error Correction of Flood Forecasting
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pollutant Monitoring Solutions in Water and Sewerage Networks: A Scoping Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/w17142049
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Energy Audits and Energy Efficiency of Urban Wastewater Systems, Following UWWTP Directive 2024/3019

by
Andrea G. Capodaglio
DICAR, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 3, 27100 Pavia, Italy
Water 2025, 17(14), 2049; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17142049
Submission received: 3 June 2025 / Revised: 4 July 2025 / Accepted: 7 July 2025 / Published: 8 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Water Pollution Control: Theory and Technology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

The recent Directive EU/2024/3019, a recast of the previous 1991 Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment, introduces new obligations concerning effluents requirements and overall energy management in urban wastewater systems. In addition to increased levels of treatment (including extended tertiary and quaternary pollutants removal), the Directive introduces the obligation for treatment facilities to become “energy neutral” at the national sectoral level, increasing reliance on energy optimization and recovery from internal processes and external renewable energy sources. In order to achieve this objective, an obligation to periodically conduct energy audits is introduced; however, while this practice is commonly carried out in residential and industrial buildings, guidelines for its implementation in treatment facilities are currently not precisely defined. The paper summarizes current issues on wastewater sector energy audits, discussing the current state-of-the-art and the expected requirements to conduct such audits. It then discusses the causes of possible facility inefficiencies and their possible solutions from both permanent and transient perspectives. Finally, it addresses the issue of energy neutrality requirement, and the role of renewable energy sources contribution, both natural and internal (process-related) to the sector’s energy efficiency.

1. Introduction

Municipal wastewater management systems (MWWMS), i.e., collection systems and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), are among the major single energy consumers at municipal level worldwide. Under current technology, specific power consumption of modern WWTPs is estimated to range between 20 and 45 kWh/PE-y (PE, population equivalent, corresponding to a nominal organic pollution load of 60 gBOD5/person-day), depending on treatment level [1]. Higher demands may be linked to age or facility performance: a survey in Greece showed that the energy consumption of WWTPs with capacity between 10,000 and 4 × 106 PE ranged from 15 to 86 kWh/PE-y [2]. A study examining the performance of 203 WWTPs in Chile found that the average facility could reduce energy consumption by 56.7% while maintaining equal pollutants removal efficiency, and that the majority of them could achieve energy savings of up to 80%, on average, by switching to a different process technology [3]. Furthermore, developed countries’ WWTP energy demand is expected to increase by over 20% in the next 15 years as effluent requirements become more stringent [4]. Similar trends are expected in developing countries as wastewater treatment extension becomes a priority following UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 6 [5].
On the financial side, energy generally accounts for the second-largest item of operating costs, often surpassed only by personnel costs; nevertheless, they vary significantly, ranging from 9% to over 50% of total operating costs depending on context and country (e.g., energy tariffs, labor costs, etc.) [6]. These and other studies have clearly shown that energy optimization of WWTP performance is an achievable objective.
As far as collection systems, many factors influence energy consumption and efficiency: design, pumping technology, urban catchment characteristics, climate; it is, thus, more difficult to establish reliable average ranges (either referred to PEs served, or total volume conveyed). Wastewater pumping theoretically requires approximately 2.75 Wh/m3-m of hydraulic head, without considering pumping efficiency losses: one estimate indicated sewage systems energy requirements up to 69 kWh/PE-y [1]; a study in Spain estimated the average energy used by sewer systems as 0.014 kWh/m3-y on a water flow basis [7]. This demand should not be underestimated, as it may constitute up to 50% of the electric consumption of a typical MWWMS.
Efficiency improvement at plant/system level can reduce the sector’s energy demand by adopting various methods, including process-energy reduction, energy recovery, and generation from waste streams, to such an extent that WWTPs may become energy neutral or even energy positive [8,9].
In line with current EU policy, the recent Directive EU/2024/3019 [10], recast of the previous 1991 Directive 91/271/EEC [11], concerning urban wastewater treatment, hereafter referred to as UWWTD, aims at reinforcing environmental protection of receiving waters from wastewater-borne pollutants, including Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), while progressively reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from urban wastewater collection and treatment activities and promoting energy efficiency and production of renewable energies within these facilities, thus contributing to the 2050 objective of Climate Neutrality established under Regulation EU/2021/1119 [12].
Although the main environmental purpose of WWTPs is the removal of pollutant loads from influents, this should be accomplished under optimum energy performance. With this as an objective, article 11 of the UWWTD introduces a new obligation concerning WWTPs’ overall energy neutrality at national. To ensure that the potential for energy savings, renewable energy production, and GHG emission reduction is met, the UWWTD foresees that operating WWTP (and collection systems) energy audits should be carried out periodically (every 4 years) initially (by 31 December 2028) for facilities with capacity ≥ 100,000 PE, and later (by 31 December 2032) for those with capacity ≥ 10,000 PE. Audits should include the identification of energy consumption reduction, cost-effective recovery, and use of waste heat, or of production of renewable energy potentials. Following the audits’ outcomes, it is expected that appropriate and adequate technologies for energy savings, recovery, and generation will be identified and implemented through MWWMS’ upgrading.
Upgrading of a large number of European facilities will most likely be necessary in the next future, due to the new provisions concerning wastewater treatment levels. In fact, Article 3 of the Directive extends the obligation of the existence of domestic wastewater collecting systems in all agglomerations with population ≥ 1000 PE (previously this obligation applied from ≥ 2000 PE), and articles 6, 7, and 8 introduce new, or extended, obligations concerning both basic and advanced treatments, in particular concerning nutrients and micropollutants removal (Table 1).
Wastewater treatment requirements significantly affect overall energy consumption: it is fairly obvious that—everything else being equal—more treatment requires more energy. For example, a conventional activates sludge (CAS) plant can expect an increase of 35–50% energy demand (through higher oxygen requirements) by incorporating full nitrification; upgrading from secondary treatment CAS to secondary treatment MBR to improve treated effluent carbon and solids standards (at equal organic load) can also be expected to add considerable energy demand, as MBRs require aeration both for biological process proper and membrane scouring [13]. Removal of micropollutants may require the adoption of advanced oxidation or oxidation/reduction processes (AOP/AORP) as a quaternary treatment stage [14].
This paper addresses current issues about energy audits in WWTPs, discussing the current state-of-the-art on this topic and the requirements to conduct such audits. It then discusses the causes of possible WWTPs inefficiencies, and their possible solutions from both permanent and transient perspectives. Finally, it addresses the issue of energy neutrality requirement, and the role of renewable energy sources (RES) contribution, both natural and internal (process-related) to WWTP energy efficiency, discussing future sector perspectives.

2. Energy Audits in Urban Wastewater Systems

Many contributing factors influence MWWMSs energy consumption including the following: size, age, topography, and climate; chosen processes and technologies installed; and operation and maintenance practices, including the use of automated monitoring and control systems.
The actual identification and quantification of both persistent and transient (temporary) energy inefficiencies in a facility requires a structured, systematic investigation approach (‘audit’), according to a consistent methodology across various situations and layouts. Energy audits are defined by Article 2(32) of Directive EU/2023/1791 [15] as “a systematic procedure with the purpose of obtaining adequate knowledge of the energy consumption profile of a building or group of buildings, an industrial or commercial operation or installation or a private or public service, identifying and quantifying opportunities for cost-effective energy savings, identifying the potential for cost-effective use or production of renewable energy and reporting the findings”. The Directive (Annex VI) does not indicate a prescribed methodology for conducting audits but specifies the minimum criteria that shall be upheld while carrying them out (Table 2).

2.1. Energy Audit Guidelines

In the momentary absence of detailed guidelines for conducting WWTP audits, some existing general examples of energy audit procedures can be of guidance.

2.1.1. ASHRAE Procedure

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [16] designated three levels of energy audits for commercial and residential buildings (Table 3). This methodology can be adapted to WWTPs, with the combination of levels 1 and 2 as a regular Energy Audit, and Level 3 being part of a detailed engineering redesign effort [17].
While the ASHRAE audit guidelines are very common in industrial and commercial buildings, not many examples ASHRAE-based full-scale WWTP audits on operating WWTP have been reported in technical literature: Dwight and Johnson [18], conducted a Level II audit of the Port Dalhousie WWTP (St. Catharines, ON, Canada), while Phelan [19] investigated measures for energy efficiency improvement by conducting in-depth energy audits on five (capacity of 400, 500, two 12,000 and one 50,000 PE) WWTPs in Ireland. All audits identified opportunities for energy efficiency gains.

2.1.2. Energy Audits According to ISO 50001

Although also not specifically designed for WWTPs or the water sector in general, the International Standard ISO 50001:2018 for enterprise Energy Management Systems (EMS) [20] represents a systematic guidance to energy management in any organization, aiming at increasing energy efficiency, reducing costs, and improving energy performance. In the context of ISO 50001, an energy audit is a systematic and independent methodology focusing on facilities’ design and conditions, data collection, planning of the EMS and involved energy processes, improving energy performance, and meeting legal requirements and energy objectives specific to this sector. ISO 50001 is based on a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) iterative process encompassing four consecutive, iterative steps: Plan—perform an energy assessment to identify baseline, energy performance indicators, objectives, targets, and draw an action plan; Do—implement and follow the initial action plan; Check—monitor operations, measure improvements and determine energy performance based on objectives; report results; Act—periodically review progress and make adjustments (Figure 1).
One recent study aimed to assess the impact of a WWTP energy audit according to the ISO 50001/PDCA methodology, within the context of current Portuguese rules, to identify and quantify both persistent and transient energy inefficiencies [21]. The analysis was able to identify and correct persistent inefficiencies, mostly linked to plant equipment design factors, and suggest improvements to generate energy consumption reduction of 10.8%. Table 4 summarizes the outcome of the audit. The proposed solutions and predicted effects represent the conclusions of the audit’s extensor.
Other published reports of ISO 50001-based WWTP audits include those by Arabeyyat and Ragha [22], McGrath [23], Machnik-Slomka et al. [24], and Nakkasunchi and Brandoni [25]. The first of these studies selected the most energy consuming pumps of the Zai WWTP (Jordan) pumping station, implementing an ISO 50001-based energy management system and pump maintenance project to improve pumping performance. The outcome showed that the energy consumption effectiveness increased after the implementation of the management system, increasing by almost 8%. The second study discussed chronology, level of effort and lessons learned from the application of the 50001 DOE procedure at the Fairfax County (Virginia) Noman M. Cole Pollution Control Plant to reduce GHG and overall carbon footprint by improving energy efficiency. Machnik-Slomka and colleagues assessed the level of development of energy management systems in water utilities in the Czeck Republic, developing an assessment tool for multidimensional energy management systems based on ISO-50001, which allowed for the identification of areas in which changes could be introduced to optimize current practices. Finally, Nakkasunchi and Brandoni evaluated the energy decarbonisation potential of WWTPs in the Murcia Region (Spain) following ISO-50001 by exploring energy consumption patterns, identifying energy-intensive processes and equipment, and analyzing techno-economic feasibility of on-site energy generation. Additionally, carbon emissions associated with both energy consumption and generation were addressed.

2.2. Audit Requirements

In order to successfully carry out an audit, the following conditions are necessary: sufficient data availability, definition of the appropriate performance indicators data, and successful identification of inefficiency causes.
The availability of real-time, continuous systems for data collection, storage, and analysis, also known as SCADAs (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), appears, therefore, essential for supporting MWWMS analysis and energy benchmarking audits. A SCADA system usually consists of flow meters and water quality sensors to carry out remote monitoring of the major energy consumption components on a system, all connected to a central database. A variety of hardware-based sensors and indirect or soft-sensing techniques are nowadays available to monitor individual WWTP units in real-time [26,27,28,29]. A significant enhancement in information can be achieved through the measurement of individual units’ consumption, rather than of the total energy used by the entire WWTP as, in order to improve energy efficiency, it is necessary to know the exact energy needs of each individual process along its operation [30]. Most medium-large WWTPs continuously monitor and collect many unit processes data, but these are often underutilized, due to dataset size and complexity and to the lack of operators’ data science background [31]. In some cases, mostly in larger facilities, numerical or AI models are incorporated in these systems to calculate adjustment and optimization of operating parameters [32,33].
In the US, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have developed an Energy Data Management Manual for the Wastewater Treatment Sector supported by publicly available software tools to help WWTP operators measure and track energy performance; these contain built-in statistical calculations according to standard methodologies to obtain comparable metrics [34].
In recent years, SCADA systems were also introduced in sewer systems monitoring, mostly with the objective to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSO) of untreated discharges into receiving waters [35,36], more rarely for the purpose of energy use efficiency improvement [37,38].

Benchmarking of WWTP Performance

An audit is based on the evaluation of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), defined as measurable values showing how effectively a process is achieving key objectives in terms of efficiency, quality, and productivity; they may be expressed in terms of the ratio of selected input(s) and output(s). Historical KPIs are relatively easy to obtain from past monitoring data and are easy to compare; however, their direct comparison overlooks many other specific details and yields meaningful information only in very similar application conditions (e.g., layout, technology, climate, influent type, etc.). Furthermore, WWTP may have multiple objectives, e.g., the removal of COD, N, P [39] production of energy from biogas or recover resources such as fertilizers [40]. For example, evaluating the efficiency of COD, N, and P removal requires analysis of three separate KPIs; one plant may have high efficiency concerning one, but low for the others; an appropriate weighting (optimization) between different objectives is necessary [41].
In past studies, three types of energy-related KPIs have generally been employed: volumetric (kWh/m3 treated WW), procapita (kWh/PE), pollutant-related (e.g., kWh/kg CODremoved; kWh/kg BOD5removed; kWh/kg Nremoved). These usually refer to the direct electric energy consumption by the involved processes; theoretically, however, embedded energy in reagents and postprocessing of residuals should be factored in.
In order to compare the efficiency of different processes, Bolton et al. [42] introduced the concept of electrical energy per order (EE/O) as a useful figure-of-merit for process benchmarking, defined as the electrical energy required to reduce the concentration of a given pollutant by an order of magnitude in a unit volume of solution [kWh/m3-log]. EE/O quantification can help compare the removal efficiency on the same pollutant of different treatment methods, identify the most energy-efficient options and, at the same time, minimize WWTPs environmental footprint by reducing GHG emissions and other impacts. The advantage of the EE/O metric versus other commonly adopted KPIs is that it contains both the volumetric and concentration effects of a process. The EE/O parameter is officially adopted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) for photochemical reactor characterization and is commonly used in the parametrization of the efficiency of AOPs, particularly those that use UV light and/or other energy sources to generate high oxidative/reductive radicals to degrade organic pollutants [43]. As a figure of merit (a numeric descriptor of process efficiency and design parameter), EE/O could replace or complement more ambiguous performance parameters, such as cost or energy used per unit volume, and could be standardized for conventional treatment processes. If properly reported under standard conditions [44], it could be used as a more fundamental indicator than current performance parameters for comparison of different systems based on studies from different years, and experimental setups, regardless of the energy costs at a given moment.
Several studies have addressed energy benchmarking of WWTPs, with a number of different methodologies adopted [45,46]; however, an immediate comparison among findings is barely feasible due to ample methodological and site-specific differences [47]. Different benchmarking methods may offer different insights on facilities’ performance of the WWTP and may lead to different interpretations and conclusions. A comparative study of different benchmarking models of Spanish WTTPs showed that efficiency scores are strongly affected by selection of specific output parameter(s) [48].
A new approach methodology assessing energy efficiency in WWTP under a unified performance index indicator was recently proposed by Mauricio-Iglesias et al. [49]. In that study, data from 13 European WWTPs were processed to obtain four KPIs: one for in-plant wastewater pumping, one for removal of COD, N, and P, one for pathogens removal, and one for sludge treatment of sludge and solids removal. These KPIs were normalized, weighted, aggregated in a composite index, and statistically analyzed to reflect the concept that the energy efficiency of a WWTP is in fact a multidimensional issue. When defining a composite index, a number of characteristics must be guaranteed to provide robust representations of the measured parameters and easy interpretation by the users: it should not depend on arbitrary parameters selection and be reproducible and robust (i.e., must not vary when changing time steps or methods; selected aggregation weights must have a negligible influence on the result; be based on a large enough database as to expect minimal differences when new WWTPs are added) [50].
Due to KPIs’ use limitations in WWTP benchmarking, multicriteria methods have been increasingly proposed; these include stochastic frontier analysis [51], efficiency analysis tree [52], stochastic non-parametric envelopment of data [53], and data envelopment analysis (DEA) [54]. Multicriteria methods specifically designed for WWTPs are able to manage multiple inputs and outputs and are suitable for comparison of WWTPs operated with different installed technologies, configurations, and influent characteristics; however, their findings could depend on the proper selection of input and output variables.
Inefficiencies in WWTPs can be due to various factors, such as unfavorable natural conditions (topography, climate, dilution of sewage by stormwater/parasite flows), technology and design issues, age and poor equipment maintenance, low utilization rates (e.g., plant/equipment over-sizing), or lack of deep operator understanding of energy use and conservation measures.

3. WWTP Inefficiencies Causes and Possible Solutions

The cited study by Esteves et al. [21] constitutes an example of successful energy audit outcome; however, by examining its proposed solutions, it appears that the auditing team was able to identify just the causes of permanent inefficiencies in the system, due to the type of available information. Aging and deterioration of current infrastructure are normally recognized causes of permanent loss of efficiency in WWTPs, increasing the required resources (energy, maintenance, labor, and reagents) to carry out processes and achieve effluent quality standards. Although a definite relationship between construction year and efficiency of the plant could not be established, Castellet-Viciano et al. [55] in an empirical study of 322 WWTPs in Spain concluded that differences in energy consumption patterns varied not only according to year of construction and type of technology, but also with volumes treated, with smaller differences in facilities treating more than 275,000 m3/y, due to lower detectability of deterioration effects.
Transient inefficiency components are more difficult to identify, being mostly caused by application of inadequate operational strategies, e.g., wastewater pumping and aeration control, or sludge age and return sludge management, combined with infrequent sampling and/or inadequate evaluation of monitoring data during variable load events. Common practice, also supported by the monitoring requirements of Dir. EU/2024/3019, is to collect flow-proportional or composite 24 h samples at a fixed point at the outlet and, if necessary, at the inlet of WWTPs, two times a month for those with capacity between 10.000 and 49,999 PE, and once/twice weekly for plants, respectively, below/above 150,000 PE [10]. While these are mandatory to determine compliance with emission limits, they are in no way sufficiently representative of the operating status of the system. The use of adequate sensor technology becomes of major importance in these situations, as it allows to observe the functionality of the system with a time resolution that conventional controls performed by plant operators could not guarantee [56].
Integration of SCADA systems, with robust methodologies and machine learning technology for assessing unit processes’ and WWTPs’ energy efficiency [57], is already employed to implement WWTP’s control technologies towards more efficient energy management [33,58], and it could lead to the next step of implementing continuous, real-time energy performance assessments, to identify and quantify not just permanent energy inefficiencies of a facility but also transient ones during specific events.
Furthermore, paradigmatic technological changes should be included within the proposed solutions for improving a facility’s energy efficiency: as pointed out by Molinos-Senante and Maziotis [3], secondary treatment technology is, besides age of construction, the factor most influencing energy efficiency, and it is the one where most improvement could be made with innovative solutions. In most cases, performance analysis of European WWTPs highlighted significant energy efficiency potential, with achievable goals of energy savings of up to 25% without any effluent quality degradation [59]. Appropriate intervention strategies can be drawn by identifying the biggest energy consumers [60], thus reducing the dependence on external energy. Cardoso et al. [6] examined short of 100 studies on WWTP energy consumption worldwide: in addition to the well-known fact that aeration systems are the biggest energy consumers (between 0.18 and 0.8 kWh/m3, representing, on average, between 40% and 75% of the total energy consumed in large and small plants, respectively), they highlighted the fact that a non-negligible fraction of consumption pertains to submersible mixers and recirculation pumps, which may represent 10.5–14.8% of a plant’s energy consumption, despite their low installed power, due to their almost continuous operation. Excessive mixing in anoxic/anaerobic units can negatively impact their performance: Barnard et al. [61] indicated that commonly adopted mixer power design (4–16 W/m3) may actually be excessive and counterproductive for optimal process efficiency by introducing unnecessary oxygen through higher-than-necessary surface turbulence, possibly disrupting microbial communities and reducing the efficiency of nutrient removal processes.
Other common processes that might be considerably energy-intensive are those related to disinfection (e.g., UV or ozonation) or to the removal of non-biodegradable organics (e.g., AOPs, RO). For example, UV disinfection systems can require between 0.045 and 0.11 kWh/m3. Ozone-based AOPs are more energy efficient than UV-based AOPs for several emerging contaminants, with EE/O values always <0.6 kWh/m3. [62]; however, emerging technologies such as electron beam (EB) irradiation have shown EE/O values that can be up to 98.3% lower than ozonation and 98.8% lower than UV/H2O2 for specific contaminants [63].
Sludge treatment energy demand may represent anywhere from 8% (Mamais et al., 2015) [2] and 35% [64] of total energy consumption, depending on technologies and downstream valorization options. Excess biological sludge offers many opportunities, at various levels of technological complexity, for sludge-to-energy and sludge-to-resources recovery [65]. This is specifically addressed by Art. 20 of the new UWWTD.
One factor statistically related with energy efficiency, but in many cases omitted from WWTP energy performance investigations, is WWTPs’ utilization capacity, expressed as the ratio of connected PEs to design capacity PEs. The utilization factor is an important indicator when analyzing plant efficiency, as it has a considerable impact not only on initial capital and operating expenditure but also on energy performance, since a plant working close to its design capacity works more efficiently than one in which the design capacity was over-estimated or is unused [66]. A study of 21 WWTPs in the Valencia Region (Spain) with capacity between 15,000 and 65,000 m3/d demonstrated a clear link between energy use and capacity utilization, with those facilities showing greater design-operation difference and also showing greater consumption than that of the conventional benchmark for fully loaded plants. This situation may be more common than usually thought: in MWWMS infrastructure planning, centralized systems (sewers and WWTPs) are generally designed with initial overcapacity to accommodate future growth. This means that, save for cases of extremely fast urbanization, centralized systems may retain substantial idle capacity for some time, incidentally, having paid money in advance for scenarios that may not develop. This overdesign is a common practice but has significant drawbacks, especially when unforeseen circumstances impair predicted urban growth [67]. Decentralized systems, on the contrary, use a more cost-effective ‘built-as-you-go’ approach in which capacity is added incrementally as needs arise [68,69].
Often, energy efficiency can be increased simply by adapting the equipment’s operating profile to the actual operating conditions, without affecting treatment efficiency. However, this possibility is frequently overlooked in small WWTPs. Another approach is equipment modernization of older facilities, often designed with little consideration for energy consumption, without modification of fundamental process design: e.g., turbo blowers or positive displacement blowers (rotary lobe or screw blowers), equipped with variable speed drive technology, that provide good energy efficiency and can adapt to fluctuating air demands, in substitution of older compressors, or jet venture mixers in substitution of conventional diffusers [70,71]. Outright process substitution, as summarized in Table 5, could also be adopted, mainly in conjunction with major facilities’ upgrading efforts. By virtue of recent technological advances, drastic paradigmatic changes in wastewater management approach are possible: it should not be ignored, in fact, that current technological approaches are based on a technical consensus dating to the late 19th century, persisting almost unmodified to this day [72,73].

4. Renewable Energies Contribution to WWTP Energy Efficiency

Article 11 of the UWWTD establishes the principle that energy consumption of all WWTPs with capacity ≥ 10,000 PE shall not exceed their energy production from renewable sources; this energy neutrality objective is expected to be met at national Member State level, and not by individual facilities, with a predetermined time schedule, and increasing compliance. This objective can be attained by “natural” (e.g., blue water hydro, solar, wind), or internally generated energy sources (e.g., wastewater hydro, heat, biogas) produced by the urban WWTP operators or their owners, both on-site and off-site. The most immediate solution for operators would, therefore, seem to increase investments in “conventional” RES, i.e., solar and wind (where appropriate) to offset internal consumption.
Solar energy has the least environmental impact compared to other RES types, as it can be integrated in service buildings or unit covers. Its application in WWTPs can follow multiple pathways, including solar thermal and PV generation, and sludge drying. Solar PV is the most common application due to scalability, flexibility, and low cost. Among 105 investigated WWTPs in the USA, 41 adopted a PV system [88]. A survey revealed that a PV system present in Australian WWTPs supplied between 8 and 30% of the plants’ energy demand [89]. While using PV energy in WWTPs offers significant benefits such as reduced energy costs and emissions, challenges exist mainly due to solar energy intermittency. PV-driven photocatalytic processes can be used for specific pollutants treatment [90]; however, this is generally unrelated with bulk energy generation for an entire facility. An economic and ecological assessment of PV systems for wastewater treatment plants in China showed that most WWTP-PV projects in that country are economically viable (China in fact has a total installed PV power at urban WWTPs of 5.6 GW) and that PV projects can help WWTPs reduce carbon emissions by 10–40% [91]. Since sludge pre-processing prior to exploitation and disposal requires substantial energy for dewatering and drying (minimum thermodynamic requirement of approximately 0.63 kWh/kg, based on sensible and latent heat to evaporate water), with total drying energy of approximately 2500 kWh/ton dry sludge [1], greenhouse drying facilities can significantly reduce external energy inputs, especially in small-to-medium sized facilities [92].
Wind generation is a widely used RES technology in certain regions, although not commonly adopted in WWTP facilities, save for a few successful installations, such as the 7.5 MW wind farm at ACUA WWTP in Atlantic City, which also exports excess energy to the main power grid [93]. However, utilizing wind power in WWTPs is generally not recommended since these facilities are generally near urban centers and due to consideration of initial investment, complexity of small-scale applications, and site-specific conditions.
Optimization and environmental assessment of RES has been discussed in the technical literature [94]; optimal design of RESs and their power management should consider reliability rates, economics, and environmental factors, an estimation of the dynamic power load and an adequate size of the required storage or backup systems to bridge supply gaps during operation. Multi-criteria decision-support frameworks for ranking designs have been proposed to determine the optimal design of RES systems to meet the dynamic demand of a WWTP [95].
Since natural RES are intermittent and subject to major seasonal variability, it is essential to match energy production and demand, as energy surpluses are becoming an issue for grid operators and may compromise the stability of an entire grid even at regional scale, especially when installed RES power is higher than 30–40% of the overall energy mix [96,97]. Energy storage can provide energy flexibility, storing it when there is generation surplus, and releasing it when needed. Suitable storage technologies depend on the relevant time scale of reference: at present, many solutions dealing with short-term storage, such as supercapacitors, batteries, or flywheels, exist. Power-to-gas (P2G) technologies can be an alternative to convert high amounts of surplus RES energy into easily, long-term storable fuels, for example, relying on water electrolysis to obtain H2 [98].
The UWWTD highlights the need for in-plant energy generation through further internal RES development from the exploitation of various energy forms embedded in wastewater, which may include micro hydropower (MHP), waste heat, and chemical (biogas, bio, and e-fuels) energies recovery. MHP has been studied for the reduction in energy consumption and excess pressure in water distribution networks, as well as at discharge point of WWTPs, wherein an excess of the piezometric head is available. It is generally recognized that a potential of 2 kW is the minimum economically viable power for MHP energy recovery installations [99]. A detailed survey of 16,778 discharge licenses in Spain found that just 95 WWTPs satisfied this sustainability criterion for MHP exploitation, with 18 exceeding a 15 kW potential [100]. A previous study in Switzerland identified 19 possibly profitable sites within the Country’s WWTPs, with a cumulated 9.3 GWh/y potential production: among these, 6 were already equipped with MHP, producing in total 3.5 GWh/y [101]. While locally useful, this contribution does not seem to carry a dramatic scenario changing impact on energy recovery from WWTP effluents.
Wastewater maintains considerable amounts of thermal energy after its collection; biological treatment processes are generally exothermal; thus, they can maintain temperature levels through the plant. Temperature affects biological process kinetics and receiving water ecology: waste heat recovery is usually possible, but its location should be carefully selected to benefit the latter while not impairing the former [102]. Estimations of both theoretical and practically recoverable energy embedded in municipal wastewater show that the potential for thermal energy recovery is much higher than that of chemicals, by a 90/10 proportion [103]. This source has been largely neglected for many years since as a low-grade thermal energy it could not be used for electrical generation but only for less flexible direct application as heating/cooling medium, used for district heating or digesters’ temperature control. The most common and efficient technology for waste heat recovery is heat pumps, although if applied directly to wastewater, these installations might be subject to fouling and corrosion phenomena [104,105].
Chemical energy recovery technologies through biogas or other fuel type generation has been discussed by [40,106]. Energy optimization of the Gubin (Poland) WWTP (capacity 90,000 PE) resulted in overall plant electricity consumption of 0.679 kWh/m3 treated. The combined production of electricity and heat from biogas, electricity from PV, and geothermal heat recovery made it possible to obtain a final energy surplus with the possibility of exporting it to the power grid [107].
At present, many utilities have or are developing plans to achieve net zero on an industry-wide basis by mid-century, with some having cut emissions by 50% in the last ten years; studies suggested that about half of energy-related emissions from water sector facilities could be significantly abated by applying existing technologies [9]; however, the adoption of more efficient treatment processes may require long-term paradigmatic shifts in urban sanitation approaches.

5. Discussion

When assessing WWTPs’ energy performance, the chosen parameter(s) must be related to some common reference value, e.g., as a function of design capacity/connected population (PE); treated volume (m3); or load removed (kg COD or BOD5). All these have drawbacks: measuring performance as a function of treated volume, although easily measured, does not reflect actual efficiency against treatment performance being affected by variable stormwater or infiltration inflows, causing dilution of the pollution load. Relating it to PEs may induce bias if a facility is not working at full connected capacity; assessing it according to pollutants removed seems to be a more accurate approach. WWTPs, however, are complex systems, such that some of their processes’ energy performance processes are volume related (e.g., pumps), others are mass flow related (e.g., aeration, sludge treatment), and others are neither directly related to volumetric nor mass flow. The use of a (actually connected) PE benchmarking approach could enable better comparisons between WWTPs with different pollution loads and treatment technology, while for the evaluation of individual processes, pollutants-related benchmarking could be more significant. Comprehensive EE/O figures of merit could allow more meaningful comparison considering both mass and volume of the treated flow, making more efficient processes readily identifiable.
Big data analysis integration at WWTP could have a substantial impact on process control and, thus, on energy efficiency. Wastewater quality can nowadays be reliably monitored in real-time by online digital sensors, which makes it possible to model WWTPs for the purpose of process control via Digital Twins (DT) images. Energy audits designed to identify potential inefficiencies could be integrated with such tools to improve or re-design those processes that do not meet minimum benchmark efficiency values. Operators should not be limited to such intervention by conventional paradigms but should evaluate the potential of available, innovative non-conventional process technologies, with consideration of new perspectives of in-plant renewable energy generation. External natural RESs, though important in achieving energy neutrality, may cause poor system robustness when they are the only off-grid source.
Technological core process innovation should be the focus of audits, to introduce new paradigms and approaches to minimize energy consumption while enhancing resource recovery, either by optimizing exiting treatment techniques or adopting new emerging approaches. The current mainstream CAS/MBR-based WWTPs paradigm appears to be inadequate to fulfill the ultimate goal of significant energy optimization. A new approach to WWTP and sewerage design is urgently needed for future sustainable MWWMS: properly configured audits can highlight the most appropriate system changes for energy and resources recovery efficiency.

6. Conclusions

The new provisions introduced by the UWWTD recast will have a profound impact in WWTP energy management, requiring intensive infrastructural revamping throughout the EU. Although increased natural RES implementation in UWWMS could help achieve energy neutrality objectives, it should be remembered that over-reliance on intermittent and poorly controllable energy sources may imply drawbacks on electric grids stability. Improving internal RES exploitation, technological innovation and processes energy efficient solutions should be part of a holistic strategy to achieve this goal. WWTP auditing guidelines should be codified at the national or EU-wide level, to obtain consistent and comparable results.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Capodaglio, A.G.; Olsson, G. Energy Issues in Sustainable Urban Wastewater Management: Use, Demand Reduction and Recovery in the Urban Water Cycle. Sustainability 2020, 12, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mamais, D.; Noutsopoulos, C.; Dimopoulou, A.; Stasinakis, A.; Lekkas, T.D. Wastewater treatment process impact on energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 71, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Molinos-Senante, M.; Maziotis, A. Evaluation of energy efficiency of wastewater treatment plants: The influence of the technology and aging factors. Appl. Energy 2022, 310, 118535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Walker, N.L.; Williams, A.P.; Styles, D. Pitfalls in international benchmarking of energy intensity across wastewater treatment utilities. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 300, 113613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lopes, T.A.S.; Queiroz, L.M.; Torres, E.A.; Kiperstok, A. Low complexity wastewater treatment process in developing countries: A LCA approach to evaluate environmental gains. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cardoso, B.J.; Rodrigues, E.; Gaspar, A.R.; Gomes, A. Energy performance factors in wastewater treatment plants: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 322, 129107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Petit-Boix, A.; Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; Chenel, S.; Marín, D.; Gasol, C.M.; Farreny, R.; Villalba, G.; Suárez-Ojeda, M.E.; Gabarrell, X.; Josa, A.; et al. Assessing the Energetic and Environmental Impacts of the Operation and Maintenance of Spanish Sewer Networks from a Life-Cycle Perspective. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 2581–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gikas, P. Towards energy positive wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Capodaglio, A.G. Energy use and decarbonisation of the water sector: A comprehensive review of issues, approaches, and technological options. Environ. Technol. Rev. 2025, 14, 40–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. EU. Directive (EU) 2024/3019 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 Concerning Urban Wastewater Treatment (Recast). In Official Journal of the European Union EN L Series; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  11. EU. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 Concerning Urban Waste-Water Treatment; Official Journal of the European Union L 135; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  12. EU. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 Establishing the Framework for Achieving Climate Neutrality and Amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’). In Official Journal of the European Union L 243; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sun, J.; Liang, P.; Yan, X.; Zuo, K.; Xiao, K.; Xia, J.; Qiu, Y.; Wu, Q.; Wu, S.; Huang, X.; et al. Reducing process aeration energy consumption in MBRs. The MBR site. Available online: https://www.thembrsite.com/features/reducing-process-aeration-energy-consumption-in-membrane-bioreactors#:~:text=1.-,Introduction,and%20scouring%20the%20membrane%20respectively (accessed on 6 July 2025).
  14. Capodaglio, A.G. Contaminants of emerging concern removal by high-energy oxidation-reduction processes: State of the art. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. EU. Directive (EU) 2023/1791 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on energy efficiency and amending Regulation (EU) 2023/955 (recast). Official Journal of the European Union L 231/1; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  16. ASHRAE. Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits, 2nd ed.; ASHRAE: Peachtree Corners, GA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenberg, E. Energy Audits for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants and Pump Stations; Continuing Education and Development, Inc.: Stony Point, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dwight, A.; Johnson, M. Looking Beyond the Process—Identifying Energy Conservation Opportunities at the Port Dalhousie WWTP. In Proceedings of the WEFTEC 2015, Chicago, IL, USA, 26–30 September 2015; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, USA. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Phelan, T. Development of an Auditing Methodology for Irish Wastewater Treatment Plants. Master’s Thesis, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. ISO 50001:2018; Energy Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/69426.html (accessed on 6 July 2025).
  21. Esteves, F.; Carlos Cardoso, J.; Leitão, S.; Pires, E.J.S. Energy Audit in Wastewater Treatment Plant According to ISO 50001: Opportunities and Challenges for Improving Sustainability. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arabeyyat, O.S.; Ragha, L.A. The use of energy management ISO 50001 to increase the effectiveness of water treatment plants: An application study on the Zai water treatment plant. MethodsX 2024, 12, 102661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. McGrath, M. Ready or Not: Implementing DOE’s 50001 Ready Program for Establishing an Energy Management System. In Proceedings of the of the WEF Utility Management Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 13–16 February 2024; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  24. Machnik-Slomka, J.; Pawlowska, E.; Klosok-Bazan, I.; Goňo, M. Evaluation of the Energy Management System in Water and Wastewater Utilities in the Context of Sustainable Development—A Case Study. Energies 2024, 17, 5014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nakkasunchi, S.; Brandoni, S. Energy decarbonisation of wastewater treatment plants in Murcia- case study. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 387, 125874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moretti, A.; Ivan, H.L.; Skvaril, J. A review of the state-of-the-art wastewater quality characterization and measurement technologies. Is the shift to real-time monitoring nowadays feasible? J. Water Process Eng. 2024, 60, 105061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yaroshenko, I.; Kirsanov, D.; Marjanovic, M.; Lieberzeit, P.A.; Korostynska, O.; Mason, A.; Frau, I.; Legin, A. Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring with Chemical Sensors. Sensors 2020, 20, 3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Viviano, G.; Valsecchi, S.; Polesello, S.; Capodaglio, A.; Tartari, G.; Salerno, F. Combined Use of Caffeine and Turbidity to Evaluate the Impact of CSOs on River Water Quality. Water Air Soil. Poll. 2017, 228, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Capodaglio, A.G. In-stream detection of waterborne priority pollutants, and applications in drinking water contaminant warning systems. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2017, 17, 707–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Żyłka, R.; Karolinczak, B.; Dąbrowski, W. Structure and indicators of electric energy consumption in dairy wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2021, 782, 146599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Newhart, K.B.; Holloway, R.W.; Hering, A.S.; Cath, T.Y. Data-driven performance analyses of wastewater treatment plants: A review. Water Res. 2019, 157, 498–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sean, W.Y.; Chu, Y.Y.; Mallu, L.L.; Chen, J.G.; Liu, H.Y. Energy consumption analysis in wastewater treatment plants using simulation and SCADA system: Case study in northern Taiwan. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 124248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Capodaglio, A.G.; Callegari, A. Use, Potential, Needs, and Limits of AI in Wastewater Treatment Applications. Water 2025, 17, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. DOE. Energy Data Management Manual for the Wastewater Treatment Sector; Report DOE/EE1700; U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Washington, DC, USA; Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2017.
  35. Lund, N.S.V.; Borup, M.; Madsen, H.; Mark, O.; Mikkelsen, P.S. CSO Reduction by Integrated Model Predictive Control of Stormwater Inflows: A Simulated Proof of Concept Using Linear Surrogate Models. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56, e2019WR026272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shepherd, W.; Mounce, A.; Sailor, G.; Gaffney, J.; Shah, N.; Smith, N.; Cartwright, A.; Boxall, J. Cloud-Based Artificial Intelligence Analytics to Assess Combined Sewer Overflow Performance. I Water Resour. Plann Manag. 2023, 149, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kroll, S.; Fenu, A.; Wambecq, T.; Weemaes, M.; Van Impe, J.; Willems, P. Energy optimization of the urban drainage system by integrated real-time control during wet and dry weather conditions. Urban Water J. 2018, 15, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reifsnyder, S.; Cecconi, F.; Rosso, D. Dynamic load shifting for the abatement of GHG emissions, power demand, energy use, and costs in metropolitan hybrid wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 2021, 200, 117224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou, Q.; Sun, H.; Jia, L.; Wu, W.; Wang, J. Simultaneous biological removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from secondary effluent of wastewater treatment plants by advanced treatment: A review. Chemosphere 2022, 296, 134054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Capodaglio, A.G. Urban Wastewater Mining for Circular Resource Recovery: Approaches and Technology Analysis. Water 2023, 15, 3967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Matos, B.; Salles, R.; Mendes, J.; Gouveia, J.R.; Baptista, A.J.; Moura, P. A Review of Energy and Sustainability KPI-Based Monitoring and Control Methodologies on WWTPs. Mathematics 2023, 11, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bolton, J.R.; Valladares, J.E.; Zanin, J.P.; Cooper, W.J.; Nickelson, M.G.; Kajdi, D.C.; Waite, T.D.; Kurucz, C.N. Figures-of-merit for advanced oxidation technologies: A comparison of homogeneous UV/H2O2, heterogeneous UV/TiO2 and electron beam processes. J. Adv. Oxid. Technol. 1998, 3, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Capodaglio, A.G. High-energy oxidation process: An efficient alternative for wastewater organic contaminants removal. Clean. Technol. Environ. Pol. 2017, 19, 1995–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Keen, O.; Bolton, J.; Litter, M.; Bircher, K.; Oppenländer, T. Standard reporting of Electrical Energy perOrder (EEO) for UV/H2O2 reactors (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 2018, 90, 1487–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Amaral, A.L.; Martins, R.; Dias, L.C. Efficiency benchmarking of wastewater service providers: An analysis based on the Portuguese case. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 321, 115914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kłosok-Bazan, I.; Rak, A.; Boguniewicz-Zabłocka, J.; Kuczuk, A.; Capodaglio, A.G. Evaluating Energy Efficiency Parameters of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Terms of Management Strategies and Carbon Footprint Reduction: Insights from Three Polish Facilities. Energies 2024, 17, 5745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gallo, M.; Malluta, D.; Del Borghi, A.; Gagliano, E. A Critical Review on Methodologies for the Energy Benchmarking ofWastewater Treatment Plants. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fuentes, R.; Molinos-Senante, M.; Hernandez-Sancho, F.; Sala-Garrido, R. Analysing the efficiency of wastewater treatment plants: The problem of the definition of desirable outputs and its solution. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 121989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mauricio-Iglesias, M.; Longo, S.; Hospido, A. Designing a robust index for WWTP energy efficiency: The ENERWATER water treatment energy index. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 713, 136642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wiréhn, L.; Danielsson, A.; Neset, T.S.S. Assessment of composite index methods for agricultural vulnerability to climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 156, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Longo, S.; Chitnis, M.; Mauricio-Iglesias, M.; Hospido, A. Transient and persistent energy efficiency in the wastewater sector based on economic foundations. Energy J. 2020, 41, 233–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Maziotis, A.; Sala-Garrido, R.; Mocholi-Arce, M.; Molinos-Senante, M. A comprehensive assessment of energy efficiency of wastewater treatment plants: An efficiency analysis tree approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 885, 163539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Molinos-Senante, M.; Maziotis, A. Influence of environmental variables on the energy efficiency of drinking water treatment plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 833, 155246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhu, W.; Duan, C.; Chen, B. Energy efficiency assessment of wastewater treatment plants in China based on multiregional input–output analysis and data envelopment analysis. Appl. Energy 2024, 356, 122462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Castellet-Viciano, L.; Hernández-Chover, V.; Hernández-Sancho, F. Modelling the energy costs of the wastewater treatment process: The influence of the aging factor. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gehring, T.; Deineko, E.; Hobus, I.; Kolisch, G.; Lübken, M.; Wichern, M. Effect of sewage sampling frequency on determination of design parameters for municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. 2020, 84, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Li, J.; Du, A.; Liu, J.; Xu, L.; He, L.; Gu, L.; Cheng, H.; He, Q. Analysis of factors influencing the energy efficiency in Chinese wastewater treatment plants through machine learning and SHapley Additive exPlanations. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2024, 920, 171033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Faisal, M.; Muttaqi, K.M.; Sutanto, D.; Al-Shetwi, A.Q.; Ker, P.J.; Hannan, M.A. Control technologies of wastewater treatment plants: The state-of-the-art, current challenges, and future directions. Ren. Sust. Energy Rev. 2023, 181, 113324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Castellet, L.; Molinos-Senante, M. Efficiency assessment of wastewater treatment plants: A data envelopment analysis approach integrating technical, economic, and environmental issues. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 167, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Silva, C.; Rosa, M.J. Energy performance indicators of wastewater treatment: A field study with 17 Portuguese plants. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 72, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Barnard, J.L.; Steichen, M.; Cambridge, D. Hydraulics in BNR plants. In Proceedings of the WEFTEC 2004, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2–6 October 2004; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sgroi, M.; Snyder, S.A.; Roccaro, P. Comparison of AOPs at pilot scale: Energy costs for micro-pollutants oxidation, disinfection by-products formation and pathogens inactivation. Chemosphere 2021, 273, 128527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Trojanowicz, M.; Bojanowska-Czajka, A.; Capodaglio, A.G. Can radiation chemistry supply a highly efficient AO(R)P process for organics removal from drinking and waste water? A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 20187–20208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Di Fraia, S.; Massarotti, N.; Vanoli, L. A novel energy assessment of urban wastewater treatment plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 163, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Capodaglio, A.G.; Callegari, A. Energy and resources recovery from excess sewage sludge: A holistic analysis of opportunities and strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recyc Adv. 2023, 19, 200184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Torregrossa, D.; Castellet-Viciano, L.; Hernández-Sancho, F. A data analysis approach to evaluate the impact of the capacity utilization on the energy consumption of wastewater treatment plants. Sust. Cities Society 2019, 45, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hernández-Chover, V.; Bellver-Domingo, A.; Hernández-Sancho, F. The influence of oversizing on maintenance cost in wastewater treatment plants. Proc. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 147, 734–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Maurer, M.; Wolfram, M.; Anja, H. Factors affecting economies of scale in combined sewer systems. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 62, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Capodaglio, A.G. Integrated, Decentralized Wastewater Management for Resource Recovery in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas. Resources 2017, 6, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Choi, B.; Jeong, T.Y.; Lee, S. Application of jetventurimixer for developing low-energy-demand and highly efficient aeration process of wastewater treatment. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rosso, D.; Stenstrom, M.K.; Garrido-Baserba, M. Aeration and mixing. In Biological Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Design, 2nd ed.; Chen, G., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Ekama, G.A., Brdjanovic, D., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  72. Beder, S. Technological paradigms: The case of sewerage engineering. Technol. Stud. 1997, 4, 167–188. [Google Scholar]
  73. Capodaglio, A.G. Taking the water out of “wastewater”: An ineluctable oxymoron for urban water cycle sustainability. Water Environ. Res. 2020, 92, 2030–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Islam, M.S. Comparative evaluation of vacuum sewer and gravity sewer systems. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2017, 8, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Obradović, D.; Šperac, M.; Marenjak, S. Maintenance issues of the vacuum sewer system. Environ. Engin 2019, 6, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kaya, D.; Çanka Kılıç, F.; Öztürk, H.H. Energy Efficiency in Pumps. In Energy Management and Energy Efficiency in Industry. Green Energy and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Badruzzaman, M.; Crane, T.; Hollifield, D.; Wilcoxson, D.; Jacangelo, J.G. Minimizing energy use and GHG emissions of lift stations utilizing real-time pump control strategies. Water Environ. Res. 2016, 88, 1973–1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Kato, H.; Fujimoto, H.; Yamashina, K. Operational Improvement of Main Pumps for Energy-Saving in Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water 2019, 11, 2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhang, D.; Dong, X.; Zeng, S.; Wang, X.; Gong, D.; Mo, L. Wastewater reuse and energy saving require a more decentralized urban wastewater system? Evidence from multi-objective optimal design at the city scale. Water Res. 2023, 235, 119923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Bernal, D.; Restrepo, I.; Grueso-Casquete, S. Key criteria for considering decentralization in municipal wastewater management. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Cecconet, D.; Callegari, A.; Capodaglio, A.G. UASB Performance and Perspectives in Urban Wastewater Treatment at Sub-Mesophilic Operating Temperature. Water 2022, 14, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zeeman, G.; Kujawa, K.; de Mes, T.; Hernandez, L.; de Graaf, M.; Abu-Ghunmi, L.; Mels, A.; Meulman, B.; Temmink, H.; Buisman, C.; et al. Anaerobic treatment as a core technology for energy, nutrients and water recovery from source-separated domestic waste(water). Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 57, 1207–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ahmad, H.A.; Ahmad, S.; Gao, L.; Wang, Z.; El-Baz, A.; Ni, S.Q. Energy-efficient and carbon neutral anammox-based nitrogen removal by coupling with nitrate reduction pathways: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 889, 164213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Capodaglio, A.G.; Hlavínek, P.; Raboni, M. Advances in wastewater nitrogen removal by biological processes: State of the art review. Rev. Amb. Agua 2016, 11, 250–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lin, C.; Xiao, X.; Li, Y.Y.; Liu, J. Evaluation of the economic and environmental benefits of partial nitritation anammox and partial denitrification anammox coupling preliminary treatment in mainstream wastewater treatment. Ren. Sust. Energy Rev. 2023, 188, 113800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ekholm, J.; de Blois, M.; Persson, F.; Gustavsson, D.J.I.; Bengtsson, S.; van Erp, T.; Wilén, B.M. Case study of aerobic granular sludge and activated sludge—Energy usage, footprint, and nutrient removal. Water Environ. Res. 2023, 95, e10914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Lei, Z.; Yuan, T.; Zhang, Z.; Lee, D.J. Energy and resource recovery from a future aerobic granular sludge wastewater treatment plant and benefit analysis. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 487, 150558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Strazzabosco, A.; Kenway, S.J.; Lant, P.A. Solar PV adoption in wastewater treatment plants: A review of practice in California. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Lima, D.; Li, L.; Appleby, G. A Review of Renewable Energy Technologies in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs). Energies 2024, 17, 6084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pandey, A.K.; Kumar, R.R.; Kalidasan, B.; Laghari, I.A.; Samykano, M.; Kothari, R.; Abusorrah, A.M.; Sharma, K.; Tyagi, V.V. Utilization of solar energy for wastewater treatment: Challenges and progressive research trends. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 297, 113300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chen, X.; Zhou, W. Economic and ecological assessment of photovoltaic systems for wastewater treatment plants in China. Ren. Energy 2022, 191, 852–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Boguniewicz-Zablocka, J.; Klosok-Bazan, I.; Capodaglio, A.G. Sustainable management of biological solids in small treatment plants: Overview of strategies and reuse options for a solar drying facility in Poland. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2021, 28, 24680–24693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. AQUA. Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm. Available online: https://www.acua.com/Projects/Jersey-Atlantic-Wind-Farm.aspx (accessed on 28 May 2025).
  94. Das, B.K.; Al-Abdeli, Y.M.; Kothapalli, G. Optimisation of stand-alone hybrid energy systems supplemented by combustion-based prime movers. Appl. Energy 2017, 196, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nguyen, H.T.; Safder, U.; Nguyen, X.Q.N.; Yoo, C.K. Multi-objective decision-making and optimal sizing of a hybrid renewable energy system to meet the dynamic energy demands of a wastewater treatment plant. Energy 2020, 191, 116570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. IRENA. Electricity Storage and Renewables: Costs and Markets to 2030; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  97. Notton, G.; Nivet, M.L.; Voyant, C.; Paoli, C.; Darras, C.; Motte, F.; Fouilloy, A. Intermittent and stochastic character of renewable energy sources: Consequences, cost of intermittence and benefit of forecasting. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 87, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ceballos-Escalera, A.; Molognoni, D.; Bosch-Jimenez, P.; Shahparasti, M.; Bouchakour, S.; Luna, A.; Guisasola, A.; Borràs, E.; Della Pirriera, M. Bioelectrochemical systems for energy storage: A scaled-up power-to-gas approach. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Novara, D.; Carravetta, A.; McNabola, A.; Ramos, H.M. Cost Model for Pumps as Turbines in Run-of-River and In-Pipe Microhydropower Applications. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2019, 145, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mérida García, A.; Rodríguez Díaz, J.A.; García Morillo, J.; McNabola, A. Energy Recovery Potential in Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Networks Using Micro-Hydropower in Spain. Water 2021, 13, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bousquet, C.; Samora, I.; Manso, P.; Rossi, L.; Heller, P.; Schleiss, A.J. Assessment of hydropower potential in wastewater systems and application to Switzerland. Ren. Energy 2017, 113, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Callegari, A.; Boguniewicz-Zablocka, J.; Capodaglio, A.G. Energy recovery and efficiency improvement for an activated sludge, agro-food WWTP upgrade. Water Prac. Technol. 2018, 13, 909–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hao, X.; Li, J.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Jiang, H.; Liu, R. Energy recovery from wastewater: Heat over organics. Water Res. 2019, 161, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nagpal, H.; Spriet, J.; Murali, M.K.; McNabola, A. Heat Recovery from Wastewater—A Review of Available Resource. Water 2021, 13, 1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cecconet, D.; Raček, J.; Callegari, A.; Hlavínek, P. Energy recovery from wastewater: A study on heating and cooling of a multipurpose building with sewage-reclaimed heat energy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Capodaglio, A.G. Developments and Issues in Renewable Ecofuels and Feedstocks. Energies 2024, 17, 3560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Myszograj, S.; Bocheński, D.; Mąkowski, M.; Płuciennik-Koropczuk, E. Biogas, Solar and Geothermal Energy—The Way to a Net-Zero Energy Wastewater Treatment Plant—A Case Study. Energies 2021, 14, 6898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 02049 g001
Figure 1. Concept of ISO 50001 methodology. Each box corresponds to a set of well-defined requirements.
Figure 1. Concept of ISO 50001 methodology. Each box corresponds to a set of well-defined requirements.
Water 17 02049 g001
Table 1. New treatment obligations deriving from the new UWTTD.
Table 1. New treatment obligations deriving from the new UWTTD.
ParameterConcentration [mg/L]Minimum Reduction [%]
Article 6(3)—applicable to WWTPs with capacity ≥ 1000 PE * (currently 2000)
BOD52570–90 (40 ^)
COD *12575
TSS3590
Article 7—Applicable to WWTPs with PE capacity §
10,000–150,000 &≥150,00010,000–150,000 &≥150,000
Total N10 (15)8 (10)80 (70–80)80 (70–80)
Total P0.7 (2)0.5 (1) 87.5 (80)80 (80)
Article 8—Applicable to WWTPs with PE capacity ≥ 150,000 PE **
Obligation of quaternary treatment (≥80%) for removal of Amisulprid, Carbamazepine, Citalopram, Clarithromycin, Diclofenac, Hydrochlorothiazide, Metoprolol, Venlafaxine, Benzotriazole, Candesartan, Irbesartan, mixture of 4-Methylbenzotriazole, and 5-methyl-benzotriazole.
Note(s): * Defined as an individual load of 60 mg/L BOD5 (120 mg/L COD). ^ For discharges in cases specified by Art. 6(4) (Cold climate, high altitude, deep sea conditions). § Under Directive 91/271/EEC, the ranges of limits (in brackets) applicability were 10,000–100,000 and ≥ 100,000 PE. & Discharging in sensitive areas defined according to the Directive’s Art. 7(2) and (3). ** Additionally to those with PE ≥ 10,000 in pollutant sensitive areas defined according to the Directive’s Art. 8(2), (4).
Table 2. Minimum criteria for energy audits, including those carried out as part of energy management systems (Annex VI, Dir. 2023/1791).
Table 2. Minimum criteria for energy audits, including those carried out as part of energy management systems (Annex VI, Dir. 2023/1791).
The Energy Audits Referred to in Article 11 Shall
(a)Be based on up-to-date, measured, traceable operational data on energy consumption and (for electricity) load profiles;
(b)Comprise a detailed review of the energy consumption profile of buildings or groups of buildings, industrial operations or installations, including transportation;
(c)Identify energy efficiency measures to decrease energy consumption;
(d)Identify the potential for cost-effective use or production of renewable energy;
(e)Build, whenever possible, on life-cycle cost analysis instead of simple payback periods in order to take account of long-term savings, residual values of long-term investments and discount rates;
(f)Be proportionate, and sufficiently representative to permit the drawing of a reliable picture of overall energy performance and the reliable identification of the most significant opportunities for improvement.
Energy audits shall allow detailed and validated calculations for the proposed measures so as to provide clear information on potential savings. Data used in energy audits shall be storable for historical analysis and tracking performance.
Table 3. Energy audit levels according to ASHRAE.
Table 3. Energy audit levels according to ASHRAE.
Audit LevelDescription Outcome
Level 1—Walk-Through SurveyAnalysis of previous energy bills and process data (typically up to 3 years), visit to the facility and interview with key decision makers, basic energy measurements.Report outlining on-site energy use, an energy benchmark, and recommendations for low-cost or no cost energy efficiency improvements.
The report will also list possible future energy saving capital projects.
Level 2—Energy Survey and AnalysisBuilds on a Level 1 audit, including a detailed breakdown on energy use by process, more in-depth measurements, an electrical peak demand analysis, analysis of the savings generated by possible energy efficiency measures. Develops possible changes to control strategies; and lays out a plan for a Level 3 analysis which would require more intensive data collection.Report similar to that of a Level 1 audit, but includes a more detailed energy and cost analysis.
Level 3—Detailed Analysis of
Capital-Intensive Modifications		Focuses on further developing capital projects identified as part of the Level 2 audit. This audit requires more data collection as well as energy and process modeling to evaluate the benefits of a particular energy saving capital project and will include detailed payback calculations.Design plans for an engineering capital project.
Minimum information for Level 1Measurements for Level 2
✓
Energy bills and process data for the
  • last 3 years, any previous energy
  • audits
✓
Agreements with energy providers
✓
Site drawings
✓
Process flow diagrams
✓
Climate data
✓
Pump and blower curves
✓
Copy of the discharge permit
✓
Equipment information:
  • Type; Location; Average Load Factor [%]; Nameplate [kW]; Average Load [kW];
  • Estimated Energy Use [kWh/yr];
  • Motor Efficiency;
  • Motor Full Load Amperage [FLA];
  • Average Operating Current;
  • Run-time (day, month, year);
  • Estimated Annual Operating Costs;
  • Dry Weather/Peak Dry Weather/Wet Weather/Emergency Operation [Y/N]
Most process data may be available from the SCADA system that should be recording (at least) flows, pressures, and the run time for major equipment.
If not available from SCADA, a data logger should be used to record the startup sequence for blowers and major pumps, providing important data to understand start-up loads (that have a large impact on electricity demand charges).
Verification of pump operation: pump operating points, flow ranges, wet-well levels and maximum and minimum set points. Check actual pump/blower speed and flow versus the respective curves.
The operating speed of any rotating equipment should be verified and compared to the one recorded in the SCADA system.
Verify temperatures of motors and pump bearings: rotating equipment operating too hot is operating inefficiently, indicating incorrect operation or need for maintenance.
Record temperatures of process areas as they not only affect workers’ health, but also equipment performance: temperatures too hot or too cold may be reasons for poorly operating equipment.
All wastewater testing must take place in a certified laboratory or with calibrated automatic/proxy (e.g., photometric sensors) systems.
Table 4. Inefficiencies and proposed solutions identified by a WWTP’s energy audit (summarized from [21]).
Table 4. Inefficiencies and proposed solutions identified by a WWTP’s energy audit (summarized from [21]).
ChallengeProposed SolutionPredicted Effect
Excessive primary intermediate pumping Implementation of gravity bypass around the homogenization stageReduction of ≈50% in pumping energy consumption (250 MWh, or 3.1% of the total WWTP consumption).
Estimated investment recovery: 4 years.
Biological treatment turbines’ capacity, exceeding oxygen requirements.

Unbalanced relationship between basin volumes and flow rates. 		Adjustment of dissolved oxygen set point.
Use of fine bubble diffusion systems.


Upgrading the servo-controlled gate at the aeration basin feed point.		Estimated 7.5% reduction in energy consumption in this stage.
Expected energy savings of between 10 and 20%, investment recovered in 0.56 years.
Negligible implementation costs amortized within a fiscal year.
Inefficient sludge recirculation pumpingPumps replacement Specific energy consumption reduction by 130–135%.
Investment of ≈ 10,000.00 € for new equipment would save 4475.00 €/y in electricity, allowing repayment in 2.5 years.
Low efficiency sludge extraction unitPumps and piping replacement Reduction in specific energy consumption between 80 and 85%; projected flow rate increase of 60% with investment of ≈ 10,000.00 €, returned in ≈ 3 years.
Biogas energy recovery potential limited by extended aeration AS Alternative renewable energy production by exploiting geometric head of 14 m at the WWTP discharge point with minihydropower plant.Estimated power generation of 36 kW at the average flow of 0.3716 m3/s.
Table 5. Examples of some possible approach/process substitutions in MWWMS aimed at energy efficiency improvement.
Table 5. Examples of some possible approach/process substitutions in MWWMS aimed at energy efficiency improvement.
Current
Technology		Alternative
Technology		ProsConsRef.
Sewage collection systems
Gravity
sewers		Vacuum
Sewers		Vacuum sewers minimize water use, energy consumption and construction costs.
Resulting sewage has higher organics and pollutants concentrations.		Require expert design and
construction.		[74,75]
Centrifugal sewage pumpsSmart, variable
frequency drives pumps 		Increased pumping efficiency. Increased complexity of variable speed pump scheduling.[76]
Level controlled pumpsPumping
optimization		Real-time monitoring and modeling optimize pumping cycles. Extensive network of flow/level sensors, advanced modeling capabilities required.[77,78]
Centralized sewer mainsDecentralized
systems		Can increase water reuse and reduce
the system’s capital cost and operational energy in the pipe network.
The “optimal degree of centralization” depends on local conditions.		This approach contrast with
current UWWMS paradigms.		[69,79,80]
Wastewater treatment
Aerobic
processes		Anaerobic
Processes
(e.g., UASB)		Anaerobic processes dramatically
reduce energy consumption and allow greater energy recovery in biogas form.		Perform optimally with high organic load wastes (e.g., vacuum sewers).
Conventional sewage may yield limited biogas volumes in colder climate.		[73,81,82]
Nitrification/
denitrification 		AnammoxRemoves nitrogen in a more energy-
efficient way than traditional nitrification/denitrification methods.		Slow process startup.[83,84,85]
Activated sludge, MBRAerobic granular sludge processesAGS processes (Nereda and others)
require less operational energy than
AS and MBR, and they may favor resources recovery from sludge.		Proprietary processes, may
require long start-up times.		[86,87]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Capodaglio, A.G. Energy Audits and Energy Efficiency of Urban Wastewater Systems, Following UWWTP Directive 2024/3019. Water 2025, 17, 2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17142049

AMA Style

Capodaglio AG. Energy Audits and Energy Efficiency of Urban Wastewater Systems, Following UWWTP Directive 2024/3019. Water. 2025; 17(14):2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17142049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Capodaglio, Andrea G. 2025. "Energy Audits and Energy Efficiency of Urban Wastewater Systems, Following UWWTP Directive 2024/3019" Water 17, no. 14: 2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17142049

APA Style

Capodaglio, A. G. (2025). Energy Audits and Energy Efficiency of Urban Wastewater Systems, Following UWWTP Directive 2024/3019. Water, 17(14), 2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17142049

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop