Hi James,
I reviewed only the new Water recommendation because I assumed that recommendation was the only one that had changed.
I have a few minor comments:
1) Trivial: The first 3 paragaphs could be compressed into 2. There's a lot of redundancy, especially between the 1st and 3rd.
2) Minor: "Comparison helps people recognize abnormal usage due to water leaks or energy efficiency problems". Did you really mean "energy efficiency" problems? Aren't we talking about water here?
3) Minor: What does the abbreviation "MOC" mean? This is used once and defined nowhere.
4) Minor: "With both #3 and #4 above, there is a potential for users who are below average to increase their usage to the average level. " I would have thought that this was ridiculous except that someone (in our Baseline committee??) said that there was actually evidence for this. It might be worth adding 1 more sentence saying that this is something that has actually happened in the past.
5) Using Boulder's bill format as a model makes sense. It might make even more sense to work with other local cities to develop a common format, rather than have every city sooner or later invent their own.
All of these comments are minor; none are "showstoppers.
Thank you.
--mgilkey