national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5.3 Summarized water use analysis results, RUBS Annual Water Use per Unit (kgal) Estimated Difference in Water Use (± 95% confidence interval) Statistically Significant at 95% Confidence Level? In-Rent (or pre- Data Source or Analysis conversion) RUBS kgal/unit/year Percent Postcard Survey 53.21 52.10 -1.11 ± 2.28 -2.1% ± 4.3% No Manager Survey 51.61 53.45 1.84 ± 4.04 3.6% ± 7.8% No Model #1 52.33 52.76 0.43 ± 3.89 0.8% ± 7.4% No Model #2 52.19 52.58 0.39 ± 3.88 0.7% ± 7.4% No Model #3 53.19 51.48 -1.71 ± 4.10 -3.2% ± 7.7% No Matched Pair 66.19 47.80 -18.39 ± 12.73 -27.8% ± 19.2% Yes Pre-Post Conversion 55.32 52.85 -2.48 ± 4.88 -4.5% ± 8.8% No Conclusion 52.19 52.58 0.39 ± 3.88 0.7% ± 7.4% No Hot Water Hybrid The study results suggest that hot water hybrid billing systems may achieve water savings, however, the sample of hot water hybrid properties was too small to produce reliable results that can be generalized to the broader population. Analysis of data from the limited sample of hot water hybrid properties does suggest that water savings, somewhat smaller than the magnitude found in submetering, may be achieved through this billing methodology, but this study was unable to verify this finding in a statistically rigorous manner because of the small sample size. Summary water use analysis results for hot water hybrid properties are shown in Table 5.4. The number of properties available for each analysis can be seen in Table 5.1. It should be noted that it was found from the site visits that a significant proportion (15%) of the hot water hybrid properties had been mislabeled by the mangers as submetered. This indicates that HWHs may be more common that originally thought, and is suggestive that they may have comparable savings to submetering. However, further research is needed to verify this. Table 5.4 Summarized water use analysis results, hot water hybrid Annual Water Use per Unit (kgal) In-Rent (or preconversion) Estimated Difference in Water Use (± 95% confidence interval) Statistically Significant at 95% confidence level? Data source or Analysis Hot Water Hybrid kgal/unit/year Percent Postcard Survey 53.21 49.61 -3.60 ± 8.35 -6.8% ± 15.7% no Manager Survey 51.61 44.79 -6.83 ± 10.58 -13.2% ± 20.5% no 130
Annual per Unit Water Use Before examining the modeling results in detail it is useful to examine the basic water use statistics for the in-rent, RUBS, submetered, and hot water hybrid properties for respondents to the postcard survey and manager survey. This is simply the annual indoor per unit water use (kgal) in these properties for 2001 and 2002. Indoor and outdoor use were disaggregated for each property using the methodology described in Chapter 3. All impacted properties included in this analysis implemented their billing program in the year 2000 or earlier, so the data under examination represents the “post-conversion” period. A small number of outlier properties from the postcard and manager survey respondents that used less than 6 kgal per unit per year and more than 200 kgal per unit per year were discarded. 25 Postcard Survey Respondents Initially, it was hoped that a fairly good sample of RUBS and submetered properties could be identified within the service areas of the study sites from the utility data bases and/or information from the utility billing companies customer records. This proved to be untrue. The utilities had no record of which of their multi-family customers send individual water bills to their residents, and the utility billing companies were unwilling to provide complete lists of their customers in these cities. This led to the worry that the study would be based on a small or selective sample of properties, which would have invalidated the results. In order to solve this problem the Postcard Survey was sent out to all of the multi-family customers 26 in the service areas of each of the participating water providers. A copy of the Postcard Survey is reprinted in Appendix A. The responses from this survey made up the largest sample group in the study, but it was never intended to serve as a data set for detecting differences in water use. The postcard survey was a short survey that asked only three questions: how customers are billed for water, who bills them, and how many units the property contains. The primary purpose of this survey was to identify a random sample of as many submetered and RUBS properties as possible and to learn the frequency with which each type of water billing system occurs in the overall group of multi-family customers. The key assumption was that the return rate for each group would be the same, which is believed to be a 25 Discarded outliers were most frequently high values (>200 kgal/unit/year). The outliers were likely the result of inaccurate reporting on the number of units on the property or an inaccurate amount of consumption attributed to the property. In addition, if water data were unavailable for 2 or more months, the water data were discarded. 26 See Chapter 3 for details. 131
Page 1 and 2:
NATIONAL MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBMETERIN
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............
Page 5 and 6:
Matched-Pair Analysis .............
Page 7 and 8:
LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1.1 Breakdo
Page 9:
Table 6.6 Elasticity values, analys
Page 12 and 13:
Figure 4.30 RUBS water bill #6 ....
Page 14 and 15:
investigated local water savings as
Page 16 and 17:
We are grateful to the members of a
Page 18 and 19:
quantitative aspects of separate bi
Page 20 and 21:
3. Owner/postcard survey: To identi
Page 22 and 23:
"averages" of impact property water
Page 24 and 25:
in-rent properties, others used the
Page 26 and 27:
of these models included the billin
Page 28 and 29:
70 Average Annual Water Use Per Uni
Page 30 and 31:
COSTS AND BENEFITS Beyond quantifyi
Page 32 and 33:
service charge, then the resident w
Page 34 and 35:
Billing Method Efficient Fixtures?
Page 36 and 37:
70 Avg. Water Use per MF Unit (kgal
Page 38 and 39:
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK REVIEW The fra
Page 40 and 41:
Table ES.1.12 NSUAA Summary of Stat
Page 42 and 43:
above, the researchers offer the fo
Page 44 and 45:
service is preferable, and would he
Page 46 and 47:
practices (BMPs) should be implemen
Page 48 and 49:
infrastructure of the building and
Page 50:
multi-family housing. The transfer
Page 53 and 54:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODU CTION More and mo
Page 55 and 56:
In 1998, 15.0%, or 15.4 million, of
Page 57 and 58:
TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS OF BILL
Page 59 and 60:
submetering. With utility-submeteri
Page 61 and 62:
all the two bedroom units for $20 p
Page 63 and 64:
HOW TO USE THIS REPORT This report
Page 67 and 68:
CHAPTER 2 LITERAT URE REVIEW As the
Page 69 and 70:
A review of the literature unearthe
Page 71 and 72:
The price elasticity of water deman
Page 73 and 74:
expected. Additionally, McClelland
Page 75 and 76:
submetered and five control (in-ren
Page 77 and 78:
Another study might want to target
Page 81 and 82:
CHAPTER 3 RESEARC H METHODS, APPROA
Page 83 and 84:
1. Selection of participating study
Page 85 and 86:
STUDY SITE SELECTION The Study aime
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 3.2 National Multiple Family
Page 89 and 90:
Matched pair protocol/survey - conf
Page 91 and 92:
information given the available bud
Page 93 and 94:
survey. Service companies that prov
Page 95 and 96:
in “business to business” calli
Page 97 and 98:
MATCHED PAIR SAMPLE The purpose of
Page 99 and 100:
The second part of the visit requir
Page 101 and 102:
epresentative of a known population
Page 103 and 104:
51 Table 3.7 Postcard survey statis
Page 105 and 106:
Table 3.8 Comparison of annual wate
Page 107 and 108:
postcard survey. Nevertheless, exam
Page 109 and 110:
confidence interval ranged from 49.
Page 111 and 112:
particular property (e.g., the mont
Page 113 and 114:
State PUC officials - water commiss
Page 115:
10. The PROPID number appearing on
Page 118 and 119:
These costs represent the commodity
Page 120 and 121:
The postcard survey provided inform
Page 122 and 123:
Table 4.4 Average number of units f
Page 124 and 125:
Two-thirds of the properties that r
Page 126 and 127:
Percent of Surveyed Properties with
Page 128 and 129:
$700 Average Rent Per Bedroom ($) $
Page 130 and 131:
Percent of Surveyed Properties with
Page 132 and 133: Impact properties were also more li
Page 134 and 135: Table 4.8 Issues considered before
Page 136 and 137: Percent of Surveyed Impact Properti
Page 138 and 139: 60% Percent of Surveyed Properties
Page 140 and 141: From the visits, it was found that
Page 142 and 143: 100% Percent of Surveyed Residents
Page 144 and 145: Roughly similar proportions of resi
Page 146 and 147: inserts for toilets (21%) or low-fl
Page 148 and 149: proportion were unsure, 37% from su
Page 150 and 151: Table 4.18 Ownership and rental rat
Page 152 and 153: Figure 4.17 Submeter water bill #1
Page 158 and 159: wastewater rates are not shown so t
Page 160 and 161: Figure 4.23 Hot water hybrid water
Page 162 and 163: RUBS Sample Bills Seven sample RUBS
Page 164 and 165: wastewater rates are not shown so t
Page 166 and 167: Figure 4.28 RUBS water bill #4 from
Page 168 and 169: Figure 4.30 RUBS water bill #6 RUBS
Page 170 and 171: directly to and then paid by the th
Page 172 and 173: never subtracting for common area w
Page 174 and 175: Late Fees At the start of water bil
Page 176 and 177: 124
Page 178 and 179: intuitively clear, and matches comm
Page 180 and 181: Indoor water use was normalized on
Page 184 and 185: easonable assumption since there is
Page 186 and 187: Figure 5.1 shows the frequency dist
Page 188 and 189: 40 Difference in Annual Water Use p
Page 190 and 191: after 1995. By including only those
Page 192 and 193: 70 Average Annual Water Use Per Uni
Page 194 and 195: Table 5.11 Statistical tests compar
Page 196 and 197: Factors that Influence Water Use Th
Page 198 and 199: Table 5.12 Association of categoric
Page 200 and 201: Indoor Water Use per Unit in 2001 I
Page 202 and 203: Table 5.13 Continuous factors from
Page 204 and 205: Multivariate Models to Determine Im
Page 206 and 207: properties built before 1995 were c
Page 208 and 209: 70 Average Annual Water Use Per Uni
Page 210 and 211: A = Beta coefficient for “Propert
Page 212 and 213: substantially reduces the sample si
Page 214 and 215: Table 5.17 Model #2 coefficients an
Page 216 and 217: 0.00 indicating that whatever fit d
Page 218 and 219: commodity charge for water and wast
Page 220 and 221: properties having generally lower w
Page 222 and 223: 110 Average Annual Water Use Per Un
Page 224 and 225: analysis, intended to control best
Page 226 and 227: Table 5.27 Paired samples test, all
Page 228 and 229: Table 5.30 Estimated water use befo
Page 230 and 231: Table 5.33 Comparison of water savi
Page 232 and 233:
180
Page 234 and 235:
sector only reduced usage by 18% (A
Page 236 and 237:
Table 6.1 Avoided costs from submet
Page 238 and 239:
submetered. Complete responses of c
Page 240 and 241:
included in this cost/benefit analy
Page 242 and 243:
Table 6.3 Cost and benefit for owne
Page 244 and 245:
Perceived Concerns In the resident
Page 246 and 247:
With a service fee, residents could
Page 248 and 249:
Table 6.4 Economic return for a res
Page 250 and 251:
ANALYSIS OF PRICE ELASTICITIES Econ
Page 252 and 253:
concluded that if a single elastici
Page 254 and 255:
esults from this analysis point to
Page 256 and 257:
over which they have control than d
Page 258 and 259:
According to the basic consumer cho
Page 260 and 261:
The consumer choice problem can be
Page 262 and 263:
210
Page 264 and 265:
water systems from compliance with
Page 266 and 267:
and methods of practice. NIST publi
Page 268 and 269:
Table 7.1 NSUAA Summary of State Re
Page 270 and 271:
New Surveys of State Agencies and W
Page 272 and 273:
the AWWA WaterStats 1999 database.
Page 274 and 275:
Measures, which dispatches a public
Page 276 and 277:
Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania
Page 278 and 279:
226 Table 7.6 Summary of utility re
Page 280 and 281:
DISCUSSION - KEY EXAMPLES OF STATE
Page 282 and 283:
ill. Condominium associations are g
Page 284 and 285:
under construction after January 1,
Page 286 and 287:
Weights and Measures Regulation In
Page 288 and 289:
from the submetering. Meter testing
Page 290 and 291:
clean and decent housing or the lac
Page 292 and 293:
240
Page 294 and 295:
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE F
Page 296 and 297:
complaints in all 50 states and app
Page 298 and 299:
- Meters must demonstrate in testin
Page 300 and 301:
- Plumbing systems are space constr
Page 302 and 303:
(2) Twisted or kinked flex supply l
Page 304 and 305:
252
Page 306 and 307:
Estimated Water Use By Different Bi
Page 308 and 309:
there are clear benefits to these s
Page 310 and 311:
study site. These values were then
Page 312 and 313:
immediately strengthens the owner's
Page 314 and 315:
among the nation's key strategies f
Page 316 and 317:
all repair and replacement decision
Page 318 and 319:
These findings underscore the obser
Page 320 and 321:
varies with volume of use) for mult
Page 322 and 323:
Recommendation 6 - Efficient plumbi
Page 324 and 325:
financially responsible for their o
Page 326 and 327:
individual unit, the volume allocat
Page 328 and 329:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARC
Page 330 and 331:
Fixed rates - Part of a master mete
Page 332 and 333:
Total-capture submetering - a type
Page 334 and 335:
282
Page 336 and 337:
Corral, L.R. 1997. Price and Non-Pr
Page 338 and 339:
McClelland, L. 1980. Encouraging En
Page 340:
Young, C.E., K.R. Kinsley and W.E.
show all

national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?