national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix B includes the enumerated survey responses from the postcard, manager, resident, and read and bill company surveys. Appendix C includes a sampling of water bills from billing service companies and owners. Appendix D includes additional statistical results. 12
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: HOW TO USE THIS REPORT This report
Page 68 and 69: 16 Table 2.1 Chronological summary
Page 70 and 71: udget. In fact, the median monthly
Page 72 and 73: of energy efficiency and made speci
Page 74 and 75: thought to be especially true since
Page 76 and 77: andomly, which could have introduce
Page 78: Table 2.2 Chronological summary of
Page 82 and 83: National Multi-Family Submetering a
Page 84 and 85: findings and provision of supplemen
Page 86 and 87: minimum impact property population
Page 88 and 89: Table 3.1 shows the billing data th
Page 90 and 91: Upon completion of the survey entry
Page 92 and 93: Table 3.2 Postcard survey response
Page 94 and 95: 210 possible in-rent properties wit
Page 96 and 97: information, the next step was to r
Page 98 and 99: create exact matches on the given c
Page 100 and 101: for analysis. The usable site visit
Page 102 and 103: correct for this difference during
Page 104 and 105: Comparison of the Manager Survey Re
Page 106 and 107: The final project database was buil
Page 108 and 109: study that a number of multi-family
Page 110 and 111: ent properties and 43% of submetere
Page 112 and 113: “goose egg,” with no discernibl
Page 114 and 115:
1. A carefully designed schedule wa
Page 117 and 118:
CHAPTER 4 STUDY SI TE CHARACTERISTI
Page 119 and 120:
from Tampa Bay Water (TBW), an addi
Page 121 and 122:
Submetered 3.9% Hot Water Hybrid 0.
Page 123 and 124:
Annual Water Use Patterns The 13 st
Page 125 and 126:
Percent of Surveyed Properties that
Page 127 and 128:
3.0 2.8 Avg. Number of Bedrooms Per
Page 129 and 130:
Estimated vacancy rates were simila
Page 131 and 132:
100% 90% 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 1
Page 133 and 134:
easiest way to bill for water usage
Page 135 and 136:
Table 4.10 Who bills residents for
Page 137 and 138:
Table 4.12 Administrative difficult
Page 139 and 140:
Table 4.13 Annual water use per uni
Page 141 and 142:
RESIDENT SURVEY RESULTS A total of
Page 143 and 144:
100% 97.9% 99.1% 100.0% 98.5% 98.7%
Page 145 and 146:
properties were somewhat less likel
Page 147 and 148:
28% of those from RUBS properties.
Page 149 and 150:
When asked why they were dissatisfi
Page 151 and 152:
Actual Water and Wastewater Bills A
Page 153 and 154:
Submeter water bill #2 from billing
Page 155 and 156:
Cons: No consumption history or com
Page 157 and 158:
Figure 4.21 Submeter water bill #4
Page 159 and 160:
Hot Water Hybrid Sample Bills Two s
Page 161 and 162:
cold water usage as well. No data o
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 4.25 RUBS water bill #1 RUBS
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 4.31 RUBS water bill #7 READ
Page 171 and 172:
Sample Size A total of 36 surveys w
Page 173 and 174:
have this type of standard. Nearly
Page 175 and 176:
industry input. Nearly 28% said the
Page 177 and 178:
CHAPTER 5 ANALYSI S OF WATER USE AN
Page 179 and 180:
group of data, or a line that repre
Page 181 and 182:
Table 5.2 Summarized water use anal
Page 183 and 184:
Annual per Unit Water Use Before ex
Page 185 and 186:
Table 5.5 2001 and 2002 annual indo
Page 187 and 188:
was no statistically significant di
Page 189 and 190:
hybrid properties appeared to use s
Page 191 and 192:
50,000 Total Indoor Water Use Per P
Page 193 and 194:
Table 5.9 2001 and 2002 average ann
Page 195 and 196:
25% 143 Relative Frequency 20% 15%
Page 197 and 198:
Factors such as showerhead replacem
Page 199 and 200:
Indoor Water Use per Unit in 2001 I
Page 201 and 202:
Continuous Variables that Were Asso
Page 203 and 204:
of a property as a senior citizen/r
Page 205 and 206:
method such as RUBS or submetering)
Page 207 and 208:
made to determine if there are any
Page 209 and 210:
Table 5.15 Model #1 coefficients an
Page 211 and 212:
Residual Value (kgal/unit) 120 100
Page 213 and 214:
70 Average Annual Water Use Per Uni
Page 215 and 216:
(in-rent), has an average commodity
Page 217 and 218:
40 Difference in Annual Water Use p
Page 219 and 220:
local water use regulations or surc
Page 221 and 222:
characteristics of the property pai
Page 223 and 224:
In Table 5.24 the P-value is shown
Page 225 and 226:
110 Average Annual Water Use Per Un
Page 227 and 228:
Table 5.29 Paired samples test, sub
Page 229 and 230:
Table 5.32 Comparison of sample siz
Page 231 and 232:
among all billing methods. Furtherm
Page 233 and 234:
CHAPTER 6 COSTS AN D BENEFITS Beyon
Page 235 and 236:
Utilities also need to weigh the re
Page 237 and 238:
Perceived Concerns A large concern
Page 239 and 240:
the base cost can be spread over ma
Page 241 and 242:
189 Submetering Method Efficient Fi
Page 243 and 244:
Summary of Owner Perspective In mos
Page 245 and 246:
Interestingly, only 10% of RUBS pro
Page 247 and 248:
If a property owner were to reduce
Page 249 and 250:
Table 6.5 Economic return for a res
Page 251 and 252:
is possible to construct a “const
Page 253 and 254:
Elasticity Analysis #2 Submetered W
Page 255 and 256:
Table 6.7 Elasticity values, analys
Page 257 and 258:
study is often more art than scienc
Page 259 and 260:
∂L ∂g ∂L ∂x ∂L ∂λ = 0
Page 261 and 262:
Comparing demand for water derived
Page 263 and 264:
CHAPTER 7 REGULAT ORY FRAMEWORK REV
Page 265 and 266:
isk - predominantly indoor piping,
Page 267 and 268:
2007 respectively. The Department o
Page 269 and 270:
The South Carolina Survey In 2002,
Page 271 and 272:
3) State Drinking Water Officials-
Page 273 and 274:
of how well these regulations (or l
Page 275 and 276:
terms of service of submetering and
Page 277 and 278:
Water Utility Managers Results A to
Page 279 and 280:
227 Utility Re-sale of water Submet
Page 281 and 282:
considered part of the owner's gros
Page 283 and 284:
Service and pursuant to North Carol
Page 285 and 286:
Safe Drinking Water Regulation In N
Page 287 and 288:
The DOH in Massachusetts is respons
Page 289 and 290:
consumer advisory board working on
Page 291 and 292:
apartments in the Minneapolis area.
Page 293 and 294:
CHAPTER 8 ISSUES R EGARDING POINT-O
Page 295 and 296:
the Universal Plumbing Code (UPC) s
Page 297 and 298:
The ASME submeter accuracy standard
Page 299 and 300:
(1) Must not be subject to manipula
Page 301 and 302:
- Expansion of the steel or aluminu
Page 303 and 304:
Table 8.1 Comparison of testing iss
Page 305 and 306:
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUS IONS AND RECOMMEN
Page 307 and 308:
RUBS Ratio Utility Billing Systems
Page 309 and 310:
charge. While consumers receive ele
Page 311 and 312:
submetering or RUBS, and few effect
Page 313 and 314:
up of 2 to 4 units. The degree to w
Page 315 and 316:
These findings strongly suggest tha
Page 317 and 318:
The National Submetering and Utilit
Page 319 and 320:
protection for property owners and
Page 321 and 322:
space. These and other opportunitie
Page 323 and 324:
Best Management Practices for Billi
Page 325 and 326:
9) Fees. The billing entity may cha
Page 327 and 328:
transformation of water and wastewa
Page 329 and 330:
GLOSSARY OF TERMS Allocation - Ofte
Page 331 and 332:
NIST - National Institute of Standa
Page 333 and 334:
UNITS OF MEASURE - WATER, GAS, AND
Page 335 and 336:
REFERENCES Alternatives to master m
Page 337 and 338:
Goodman, J. 1999. Water Conservatio
Page 339 and 340:
Schlette, T. C., and D. C. Kemp. 19
show all

national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?