national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.2 Chronological summary of selected multi-family water savings studies. 26 Researcher Billing Method* % Savings Notes Blackburn (1994) Met. 12.5% New York, NY: Predicted for all unmetered MF housing, based on conservation measures such as the installation of low-flow fixtures. Met. 30 to 60% New York, NY: Predicted for unmetered high-end MF housing users, based on conservation measures such as the installation of low-flow fixtures. Met. 35% New York, NY: Predicted savings for metered MF users, based on conservation measures such as the installation of low-flow fixtures. Dietemann (1999) Sub. 27% Seattle, WA: Pilot study, compared one sub. building with 5 control buildings. Sub. 7.7% Seattle, WA: Compared nine buildings before and after metering. Seven showed savings, two showed an increase of usage. Gordon (1999) Sub. na Boston metro, MA: Found SF owners who are billed for water use significantly less water than MF renters who weren’t billed for water use. Koplow and Lownie (1999) Sub. 18 to 39% FL, TX, CA: 9 sub. properties were compared against 14 control buildings. Study didn't account for differences in low-flow fixtures between compared properties. RUBS 6 to 27% FL, TX, CA: 9 RUBS properties were compared against 14 control buildings. Study didn't account for differences in low-flow fixtures between compared properties. Goodman (1999) Sub. 52% 57 US cities: Estimated savings from when residents change from paying zero marginal price to national average, assumes installation of low-flow fixtures. Extrapolated from SF data. Strub (2000) HWH 5 to 12% Austin, TX: Compares one apartment before and after metering. HWH na Austin, TX: Compares one apartment before and after metering. No significant decrease in water use, attributed to higher income/rent. Wilcut (2002) Sub. 31% San Antonio, TX: 5 sub. properties were compared against 5 control buildings. RUBS 3% San Antonio, TX: 5 RUBS properties were compared against 5 control properties. Rosales, Weiss, and Sub. 7% Las Vegas, NV: Compares mobile home community before and after metering. DeOreo (2002) Sub. 12% Las Vegas, NV: Compares mobile home community before and after metering. *Met. = Master meter, Sub. = Submeter, HWH = Hot water hybrid, RUBS = ratio utility billing system.
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: Another study might want to target
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?