national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

Table 4.19 Rental costs by billing method, resident survey respondents ..................................... 98
Table 4.20 RUBS allocation methods......................................................................................... 120
Table 4.21 RUBS – common area/irrigation adjustment method............................................... 120
Table 4.22 Method for determining service charge.................................................................... 121
Table 4.23 Common customer complaints to billing companies................................................ 122
Table 5.1 Number of properties included in each analysis, by billing type................................ 127
Table 5.2 Summarized water use analysis results, submetering................................................. 129
Table 5.3 Summarized water use analysis results, RUBS .......................................................... 130
Table 5.4 Summarized water use analysis results, hot water hybrid .......................................... 130
Table 5.5 2001 and 2002 annual indoor per unit water use - postcard survey respondents ....... 133
Table 5.6 2001 and 2002 average annual indoor per unit water use - postcard respondents...... 133
Table 5.7 Statistical tests of postcard survey respondent properties: in-rent vs. impact ............ 135
Table 5.8 2001 and 2002 annual indoor per unit water use - manager survey respondents ....... 137
Table 5.9 2001 and 2002 average annual indoor per unit water use - manager respondents ..... 141
Table 5.10 Statistical tests of manager survey respondent properties: in-rent vs. properties..... 141
Table 5.11 Statistical tests comparing manager and postcard survey respondents’ water use... 142
Table 5.12 Association of categorical property characteristics with water use.......................... 146
Table 5.13 Continuous factors from manager survey and Pearson Correlation ......................... 150
Table 5.14 Model #1 summary statistics, coefficient of determination, and significance.......... 155
Table 5.15 Model #1 coefficients and significance of independent variables............................ 157
Table 5.16 Model #2 summary statistics, coefficient of determination, and significance.......... 160
Table 5.17 Model #2 coefficients and significance of independent variables............................ 162
Table 5.18 Model #3 summary statistics, coefficient of determination, and significance.......... 164
Table 5.19 Model #3 coefficients and significance of independent variables............................ 165
Table 5.20 Comparison of submetered to in-rent matched pair sample water use to postcard and
manager survey sample ........................................................................................................ 168
Table 5.21 Comparison of RUBS to in-rent matched pair sample water use to postcard and
manager survey sample ........................................................................................................ 168
Table 5.22 Average water use (kgal/unit/year), submetered/in-rent pairs.................................. 169
Table 5.23 Average water use (kgal/unit/year), RUBS/in-rent pairs.......................................... 169
Table 5.24 Average water use (kgal/unit/year) difference, submetered/in-rent pairs................. 171
Table 5.25 Average water use (kgal/unit/year) difference, RUBS/in-rent pairs......................... 171
Table 5.26 Estimated water use before and after conversion, all converted properties, N=46 .. 173
Table 5.27 Paired samples test, all converted properties............................................................ 174
Table 5.28 Estimated water use before and after conversion, submetered properties................ 174
Table 5.29 Paired samples test, submetered converted properties.............................................. 175
Table 5.30 Estimated water use before and after conversion, RUBS properties N=39.............. 176
Table 5.31 Paired samples test, RUBS properties ...................................................................... 176
Table 5.32 Comparison of sample size from multi-family billing program studies................... 177
Table 5.33 Comparison of water savings found in previous billing research studies................. 178
Table 6.1 Avoided costs from submetering, utility perspective ................................................. 184
Table 6.2 Cost and benefit per unit analysis for owners who chose to submeter....................... 189
Table 6.3 Cost and benefit for owners who choose to allocate ................................................. 190
Table 6.4 Economic return for a resident that lives in a property that converts from a flat HOA
fee to submetered ................................................................................................................. 196
Table 6.5 Economic return for a resident that lives in a property that converts from in-rent to
submetered ........................................................................................................................... 197
viii