Submetering Comments in Regard to 1-4-2012 Version of AB 19

Link to bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_19&sess=CUR&house=B&author=fong

Position: Oppose unless substantially amended

1. This bill has been changed from a submetering bill for water usages to instead require separate water services for each individual dwelling unit in multi-unit residential buildings and residential portions of common interest developments. The original bill assigned the responsibility for the installation, certification and billing of the submeters to the building owner. The latest version of this bill reassigns the responsibility for meter installation, certification, reading and billing to the water purveyor.

2. The latest version of this bill will require a substantial change in the way water purveyors conduct business. It substantially increases the number of meters that must be installed, maintained and read. This bill will require additional staff and resources for meter reading, billing, installing, and servicing with no provision for increased revenue to cover the costs.

There could be situations in large buildings where the meters can not be located in the sidewalk or parkway. This bill could result in having to install meters inside the building. This would cause difficulty in reading the meters and increase the liability to water purveyors with respect to water damage from pipe leaks ahead of the meters.

3. The latest version of this bill will impede the distribution of municipally treated recycled water for toilet flushing by requiring that the water distributed to each apartment unit be individually metered.

4. Providing separate water meters for each dwelling under the current bill language is not a practical way for saving water and is cost prohibitive.

a. The latest version of this bill will fundamentally change the way multi-unit residential buildings are built. Rather than one large riser, separate water risers will be required for each of the units. This will require more space for installation, more piping, more potential for leaks and increased difficulty in repairing those leaks.

b. The latest version of this bill will make it very difficult to build multi-unit residential high rise buildings and low rise buildings in areas with low water pressure because separate water services will require separate booster pumps, backflow devices and pressure regulators for each dwelling unit which are far more costly and consume more space in the building than one pump, and one backflow protection device to serve the entire building.

c. The latest version of this bill effectively outlaws the use of a central boiler water heating method since each dwelling unit uses a separate riser. Individual water heaters for each unit will be required. It is more costly to provide individual water meters and meet the California Energy Code (T24) than when using a central boiler. Note that separate gas services will also be required to each unit since standard electric water heaters are not allowed by T24.

d. There are other less costly and more reliable methods for saving water that are available and not being exploited. Individual metering does not guarantee water savings. Any water savings associated with individual water metering is the result of behavioral changes by the building occupants. There are other, more reliable methods for saving water that do not rely on individual metering or behavioral changes. All of these methods should be exploited first before individual metering is pursued.

5. The latest version of this bill exempts low income housing, including buildings built with at least 25 percent of the units designated for low income housing. Developers can circumvent the requirement for individual meters for the entire building (and negate any potential water saving benefit) by automatically designating 25 percent of the units as low income housing. Low income housing should not be exempted by this bill.

6. This bill has had substantial changes each time it has been rewritten. It is clearly obvious that the authors did not consult any plumbing professions in writing this bill since they abandoned sub metering for an individual water metering bill.

The April 27, 2011 Bill Analysis provided for this bill shows the only support for mandated submetering comes mainly from environmental lobby groups. Groups opposing this bill are mainly building owner associations including one from San Diego where submetering is already mandated.

The parties that will be DIRECTLY IMPACTED by this bill needs to be involved in its development. A committee comprised of building officials (Cal. Building Standards Commission), plumbing professionals, ASPE, IAPMO, building architects and contractors, water purveyors, building owners and tenant groups should be formed to address the intent and effect of this bill before it proceeds forward.