24 May 2011

Speed blogging

H/T to EB, RD, BL and DL

1 comment:

  1. The 2004 EPA/Aquacraft study was ideologically driven to promote submetering. Accordingly, there are issues with the sample size for in-rent v. RUBS findings. The NMHC is in the process of conducting a study on this issue. Preliminary findings show around a 15% conservation benefit. In the early 2000's, EPA did a few things to combat RUBS due to their organizational opposition to it. They exempted submetered properties from SDWA testing but pointedly did not exempt RUBS properties. This made absolutely no sense. The water was presumed to be compliant when it reached the master meter. The RUBS program does not use a meter or change in any way the existing plumbing (like a meter would). Yet, RUBS properties would have to go to additional expense because they were using a billing system. Fortunately, they eventually reversed course. However, manufacturing the 0% conservation benefit assisted them to exert pressure against RUBS.


Read this first!

Make sure you copy your comment before submitting because sometimes the system will malfunction and you will lose your comment.

Spam will be deleted.

Comments on older posts must be approved (do not submit twice).

If you're having problems posting, email your comment to me